CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE, 11 MARCH 1970

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 11, 2002
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: March 11, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002L03/20 ? GIA-RDP.7210N7R000300040014-7
March 11, 1970 CONGRESSION AL RECORD ? SEN S 3525
exist imperfections in our educational sys-
tem from pre-school programs to graduate
studies. These flaws in American education
deserve the immediate and thorough atten-
tion of the nation. The problems which have
already surfaced on the college campus exist
In various dormant forms in our secondary
schools, and the inadequacies which foster
them can often be traced back even further.
Until consistent, challenging, quality educa-
tion becomes a reality, the problem will
remain. ?
APPENDIX
Dynamics of Confrontation
Every stage of college confrontation?"be-
fore", "during" and "after"?is represented
among the Task Force visits, including:
Tranquil campuses: With no history of,
and little likelihood of, disruption.
Uneasy campuses: With some of the ingre-
dients of discontent.
Troubled campuses: With various forms
of group civil disobedience, e.g. Sit-ins, pro-
test rallies, occupation of buildings.
Paralyzed campuses: With civil war and
open military siege.
Convalescent campuses: With diverse
groups struggling to heal the wounds of con-
frontation and resolve differences. But the
seeds of instability remain and there are
conflicting opinions as to whether real prog-
ress or continuing instability will result.
Although schools vary widely in region,
size, student body profile, structure, govern-
ance, and campus issues, there does emerge
a common and almost predictable pattern of
escalating circumstances through which a
university can slide from dissent to open
confrontation and chaos. This progressive
breakdown is by no means inexorable on
every campus, since only a few hundred of
the nation's 2500 colleges have experienced
disruption.
On many campuses .a good mix of condi-
tions, plus cooperation among students, fac-
ulty, and administration continues to make
it possible to resolve differences without
open confrontation and to make progress
as a community. These influences toward
rational progress are mentioned elsewhere
in the report.
The temptation to oversimplify cause and
effect relationships should be resisted?
keeping in mind that some schools with
much trouble have been working hardest,
albeit unsuccessfully, to develop progressive
Change and self-governance.
However, the frequency of confrontation
has increased at such an alarming rate over
the last year, that it is well to look at the
negative conditio:ns which seem to accom-
pany crisis. Once the dynamics of this
process start to spiral ahead, the forward
momentum and the fragility of any equi-
librium lead to an almost inevitable escala-
tion of risk, danger, and lack of coordinated
civilized control over events.
Anatomy of conflict
1. The underlying malaise and frustration
with both societal and personal issues?
coupled with the existence of hardened
revolutionaries among students and their
sympathizers or even counterparts among
the faculty.
2. Identification of an emotional issue
!which has broader appeal to the target
group?non-violent moderates. The issue.
may be local and narrowly defined, e.g.
minority studies, student participation, edu-
cation reforms?or it may be broader and
more symbolic, e.g. the "people's park," mili-
tary involvement like ROTC or research,
reaction to police or military force.
3. In most oases, confrontation comes only
after frequent requests for change have failed
or gotten bogged down. These attempts may
cover several Months during which there
appears to be little or no?adtion or respon-
siveness other than ,perhaps talk or commit-
tee wheel spinning. These complaints and/or
demands may be legitimate, or they may be
a deliberately escalating sequence designed
to force confrontation. The reasons for slow
action become less important than the ab-
sence of results?even though, ironically, the
problems are sometimes not within the com-
plete control of the immediate university
community. Occasionally, militant radicals
may seek ?violence and confrontation imme-
diately, though this often fails from lack
of moderate student support.
4. During this period, faculty and admin-
istration are unable to coalesce around initi-
ation of prompt change. This usually results
in increased polarization and alienation of
more moderate students who sympathize
with some of the basic ideas for change.
5. At sofne time, often almost spontaneous-
ly, there is a student-initiated provocation
or minor confrontation, which might take
the form of a sit-in or rally. Sometimes, in-
cidents such as rock-throwing, yelling ob-
scenities and destruction of property occur.
Lack of good, clear, timely communications
among faculty, students, and administration
begins to exacerbate the crisis. Misinforma-
tion becomes more common than good in-
formation.
6. This provocation is then often met by
excessive and/or indiscriminate rebuff, in-
cluding the use of out-dated and unenforce-
able disciplinary procedures or even police
in large numbers; weapons, etc. At this point,
the moderates, carefully preconditioned to a
general feeling of sympathy by events, by
fellow students of a more radical orienta-
tion, and even by some faculty, and motivat-
ed by their lack of confidence and respect
for the establishment, as well as by the
immediate violation of "their community",
join the fray in ever-increasing numbers.
It is not difficult to imagine the recruits
gained from witnessing a clubbing, tear-gas-
sing, or firing of riot guns. Such an over-
whelming situation can readily give the revo-
lutionary cause legitimacy in the eyes of
thousands of campus moderates. Thus, it
accelerates the process of "radicalizing" a
major portion of the student body. In most
cases this change is irreversable once made.
By this time, the original issue has given
way to far broader symbolic implications?
and the original core of radicals, whether
SDS or some other, have been swept aside by
the tide of events. No matter?they have
achieved their objective.
7. Positions of all parties become hardened,
alternatives narrow as everyone stands on
"principles", and virtually no one has full
control over events. Finally, because of the
excesses on both sides, there usually ensues
a period of negotiations where all sides
repond to pressures and some sort of com-
promise is worked out?but only because the
pressures are so intense.
8. Relative calm returns, but left behind
is an atmosphere of latent crisis. Student
attitudes are more embittered and there may
be a polarization among faculty, adminis-
trators, and most certainly, the surrounding
public. To many, there is a general verifica-
tion of the principle that only the strategy
and tactics of confrontation can produce
meaningful change, at least in the short run.
Others sometimes see a few seeds of progress
along with continuing, and perhaps more
serious problems.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I shall
not consume more time of the Senate ex-
cept to say that this material is, I be-
lieve, important from the standpoint of
the subject matter in general and a repe-
tition, at least in part, of pther speeches,
articles, and material which have been
prepared on this vital subject.
I appreciate the courtesy of the Sena-
tor from Alabama in yielding to me this
time.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF MRS.
SMITH OF MAINE AFTER COMPLE-
TION OF THE REMARKS OF SENA-
TOR SCHWEIKER TC)MORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that when the dis-
tinguished Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. SCHWEIKER) completes his remarks
around 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning,
that the distinguished Senator from
Maine (Mrs. SMITH) be recognized for
not to exceed 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it iscs.,502e.
MIRV DEPLOYMENT
Mr. PERCY. Mr, President, I am very
much concerned about the news that
MIRV deployment is scheduled to begin
this June. This would dangerously es-
calate the arms race at a time when both
the U.S. and U.S.S.R. agree that the arms
race should be brought under control.
The U.S. readiness to deploy MIRV
and ABM, and the administration esti-
mates of accelerated Soviet ICBM con-
struction, make it imperative that the
arms race be stopped immediately.
I believe that, when the SALT talks
resume in Vienna on April 16, the U.S.
should propose a freeze on deployment of
all strategic missiles, both offensive and
defensive. Such a freeze on further stra-
tegic arms deployment is more feasible
at the start of negotiations than trying
to agree on weapons reductions. It is a
logical first step at Vienna.
Moreover, the freeze would be fully
verifiable through satellite reconnais-
sance and other intelligence methods.
The need for a freeze on MIRV deploy-
ment is urgent because MIRV, once de-
ployed, cannot be detected by present
methods of surveillance.
This is a matter of great concern on
the eve of the new round of SALT talks.
It is our duty to halt the arms race if we
possibly can.
NEW APPROACH ON LAOS
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD a letter I sent to the New
York Times on the subject of a new
approach on Laos.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SENATOR JAVITS URGES NEW APPROACH ON LAOS
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
March 5, 1970.
To the EDITOR:
The situation in Laos bears a disconcert-
ing resemblance to the events preceding the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964. The Ad-
ministration maintains that U.S. military
activities in Laos are essential to the war
in Vietnam. Our planes and pilots have al-
ready come under fire. The momentum of
the struggle in Laos might, indeed, lead to
the involvement of U.S. ground combat forces
despite assurances to the contrary by Secre-
tary Laird and Congressional intent as ex-
pressed in the military appropriations bill.
Congress should take the initiative lest we
again find ourselves outmaneuvered by
events. Pre-emptive action could be taken
by repealing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
the only Congressional authorization for
combat in Southeast Asia, which remains a
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72,00337R000300040014-7
S 3526 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March ii, i9
blank check: ". . as the President dieter-
mines, to take all necessary steps, including
the use of armed force, to assist any mem-
ber or protocol state of the Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Treaty requesting assist-
ance In defense of its freedom." Laos as well
as South Vietnam Is a SEATO protocol state.
On Oct. 14, 1969, I introduced with Senator
Claiborne Pell a resolution to terminate
the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on Dec. 31,
1970. A recent visit to Vietnam reinforced
my view that the Congress should impose a
deadline for U.S. disengagement from the
major combat responsibility.
This is the main purpose of the Javits-
Pell resolution. Jts legal effect would be to
restore the status qua ahte the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution as regards Congre:asional
authorization for U.S. combat operations in
Southeast Asia.
Any further combat operations in South-
east Asia after Dec. 31, 1970, would need spe-
cific new Congressional authorization. But
current legislation would permit giving con-
tinued aid, training and equipment to Viet-
nam, Laos and Thailand.
The President's "Guam Doctrine" has
gained widespread support in Congress, and
the setting is appropriate for a new ap-
proach. Enactment of the Javit,s-Pell resolu-
tion would require the Administration to
justify U.S. military operations in Southeast
Asia on the merits. Nothing could be more
reasonable or salutary in my view.
If there are U.S. interests in Laos which
justify our combat involvement there, the
Administration should have no hesitancy in
making its case to the Congress and to the
people. Present U.S. policy actions in Laos
have not been specifically authorized as such
by Congress, and are, it is charged, even
masked from public and Congressiona:: scru-
tiny by a continuing policy of nondisclosure.
[Editorial Feb. 8.]
I feel that the approach taken in the
Javits-Pell resolution avoids potential pit-
falls of other resolutions which seek to cut
off funds for Vietnam after Dec. 31, 1970, or
seek a blanket repeal of all Congressional
authorizing resolutions?i.e., Cuba, the Mid-
east, Formosa and Berlin, as well as Tonkin
Gulf.
The case in hand needing urgent atten-
tion is the situation in Vietnam and Laos.
Resolutions dealing with other areas should
be reviewed, preferably on a case-by-case
basis to allow full time and attention to all
the factors involved. At this stage, Congress
should avoid an approach involving a consti-
tutional confrontation which would Impair
the President's role as chief spokesman for
the nation's foreign policy.
JACOB K. 3:mars,
U.S. Senator from New Y
ANNIVERSARY OF UNION COLLEGE
OF SCHENECTADY
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I take this
occasion to observe an important date
in the history of New York State, the
175th anniversary of the chartering of
Union College in Schenectady. On Feb-
ruary 25, 1795, the Board of Regents of
the University of the State of New York
Issued its first collegiate charter to Union
College, creating an institution that is
junior in New York State only to Co-
lumbia.
For nearly two centuries, Union has
served the community, the State, arid the
Nation as an innovator among colleges.
The faculty and administration early
recognized the importance of science and
technology to our enterprising American
society. As early as 1809, its students
were taught the basics of chemistry.
During the 1820s, the college offered a
degree in scientific studies, and in 1845,
Union became the first college of art in
the country to offer training in engineer-
ing.
In the early years of the present cen-
tury, when the "electrical wizard"
Charles P. Steinmetz was a member of
the faculty, Union led in developing the
new field of electrical engineering.
More recently, the college's summer
programs in science education provided
the model for the all-important National
Science Foundation institutes that today
train high school science teachers in
every State. Even now, Union's programs
are providing innovative leadership for
our Nation in fields ranging from aid to
underdeveloped nations to new programs
for reaching the educationally and so-
cially disadvantaged. VITA, the Volun-
teers for International Technical Assist-
ance, founded on the Union campus just
10 years ago, has responded to more than
14,000 requests for technical advice from
more than 60 developing countries. Just
last year, the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity commissioned VITA to adapt its
methods of aiding developing countries
to the use of our own antipoverty pro-
gram.
Last summer, Union combined with
nearby Skidmore College and Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute to launch an aca-
demic opportunities program. The pro-
gram enrolled economically disadvan-
taged students of strong motivation
whose academic records did not qualify
them for college enrollment through reg-
ular channels. These students received a
summer session of intensive training in
college work, coupled with close individ-
ual attention. Then they were enrolled
In the regular freshman class last fall.
Thus Union, founded in the early years
of the American Nation, has long re-
flected the ideals and aspirations of our
own Union. I know my fellow Senators
join me in offering congratulations on
his anniversary and will wish for the
college continued centuries of distinction
and achievement.
REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON INTER-
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. JAVTTS. Mr. President, the Peter-
son Commission, established under the
authority of an amendment to the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1968, which I pro-
posed, has now made public its report on
foreign aid: "U.S. Foreign Assistance in
the 1970's: A New Approach." The pur-
pose of the task force report was to pro-
vide the President and the Congress with
comprehensive recommendations con-
cerning the role the United States should
play in assisting the less developed coun-
tries in the 1970's,
The Peterson Commission has done a
brilliant job in fulfilling its mandate. The
report, in my opinion, lays the basis for
a continuing U.S. economic aid role in the
world?a role based on international eco-
nomic cooperation, self-help, and part-
nership.
The report is responsive to many of the
criticisms made of the aid program in the
Congress and elsewhere.
A basic concept of the report is its rec-
ognition that development is a world
problem that must be tackled on a world-
wide basis in close cooperation with other
donor industrial countries. Concomi-
tantly, the report recommends a greater
mUltilateralization of our development.
effort with the IDC's. Similarly, imple-
mentation of the recommendation that
the U.S. international economic develop-
ment program should be independent of
the U.S. military arid economic aid pro-
grams that provide support assistance as
an element of security; will help remove
from our aid programs a factor that has
Inspired adverse reaction overseas and
that has disillusioned our young people
at home.
The authors of the report have truly
blazed a trail. I refer in particular to
their recommendation that the Hicken-
looper amendment be repealed and their
recognition that enlightened trade poli-
cies toward developing countries are an
essential element in the peace and sta-
bility we feel through ultimate develop-
ment in the world. When the Congress
considers the trade legislation that will
soon be before us, we would do well to
give serious consideration to the trade
recommendations in the report?the need
of extending some worldwide trade pref-
erences to the developing world, and the
need for a continued support for regional
markets among developing countries,
The administration should now act
and make its proposals in these crucial
trading area known to the Congress in
the form of administration-sponsored
In the investment area, the report's
emphasis on the importance of develop-
ing the private sector in the developing
countries of the world is most welcome.
An invigorated private sector must be
one of the key "engines of change." I
have long labored to increase the flow
of private foreign capital to the develop-
ing world and am gratified that this dis-
tinguished commission has not only
recognized the important contribution
that private investment companies such
as the ADELA and the PICA?which I
have put before the Senate and the
country?have made to development, but
also has recommended that similar or-
ganizations be established for Africa and
the Middle East. The recommendation
noticeably to expand the role of the In-
ternational Finance Corporation and the
vision of the role the newly established
Overseas Private Investment Corpora-
tion?OPIC?will play in encouraging in-
vestment flows compliment the report's
recommendations in the fields of trade
and AID.
The world now stands posed on the
brink of the second development decade.
The United Nations is making prepar-
ations for the celebration of its 25th an-
niversary. Expectations of the poorer
two-thirds of the world continue to rise?
as does the gap between their develop-
ment and that of the industrial nations.
The necessary reports and studies have
now been made. The United States?as
it approaches its 200th anniversary--is
still searching for its proper world role.
Somewhat more than 100 years ago, a
great American in surveying the United
States?noting the divisions of race,
the divisions of the laves and the have-
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 ? CIA-RDP72-00_13711000300040014-7
March 12, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL ilECORD ? SENATE
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF A
BILL
S. 8566
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, on be-
half of the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Scorr), I ask unanimous consent
that, at the next printing, the names of
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. PACK-
wooD) and the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. HARRIS), be added as cosponsors of
S. 3566, to establish, within the National
Foundation on the Arts and Humani-
ties, a National Council on American
Minority History and Culture.
The PRESIDING 0.v.toiCER (Mr.
Spoxo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
58?CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED EXPRESSING THE
SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LOWER-
ING INTEREST RATES
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, the
American people have now had 14
months of high interest and tight money
because the administration says itis the
bitter but unecessary medicine for infla-
tion.
Today the inflation is still with us, the
economy is clearly in a slump or possibly
the beginning of a recession, more and
more people are out of work, and the
medicine is feeding the disease. High in-
terest?the highest we have ever paid in
our Nation's history?has became an in-
? tegral part of the high cost of living . . .
part of the inflated price of the goods
we purchase.
And who is taking the medicine? Who
Is paying the interest? The people least
able to pay?the consumers, the small
businessmen, the farmers, the home
buyers?people to whom credit is essen-
tial but who are unable to pass along
10, 12, or 18 percent financing charges
to someone else.
Tight money and high interest do
not seem to be hurting the bankers. It
is not hurting the well-financed corpo-
rations who are lenders themselves.
The people who are being hurt are the
Ones for whom a single house or a single
college education is the most important
Investment of their lifetimes. In all of
1969, permits for fewer than 600 family
housing units were issued in St. Louis,
and only 14 of these were for single
family homes.
Mr. President, tight money has done
its work, for good or ill, and it i4 time
to end the indecent and unfair burden
It is imposing on so many millions of
People. There are other, more effective
Instruments available for dealing with
inflation, and our distinguished col-
league, Senator MONDALE, is now taking
testimony on them before the Senate
Subcommittee on Production and Stabil-
ization. I trust the administration will
give close attention to recommendations
which emerge from those hearings.
Meanwhile, however, I believe it is
time for Congress to go on record for
lower interest rates, and to demand that
the adMinistration Move promptly to
ease mono.
Coy hints of easier money just around
the corner may titillate Wall Street, but
are not doing a thing for the average
citizen except perhaps to feed his bitter-
ness.
I therefore submit, on behalf of my-
self, and Senators' CANNON, GRAVEL, HART,
INOUYE, MONDALE, RANDOLPH, SPONG, and
YOUNG of Ohio, a concurrent resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that
the administration should reverse its
high interest rate policy, and that the
Federal Reserve Board should take steps
to gradually roll back the prime interest
rate to 6 percent.
An identical resolution was introduced
osponsorship of
States.
animous consen hat the
e resolution be printed in the
at this point.
e PRESIDING OFFICER. The con-
c rent resolution will be received and
propriately referred.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 58), which reads as follows, was re-
ferred to the Committee on Banking and
Currency:
in the House with th
82 Members fr
I reques
text of
RECO
S. CON. RES. 58
Whereas a high interest rate policy has
n followed for the past fourteen months
as .art of the administrations fight against
infla. .n; and
Whe as the higher interest rates paid by
man?fa ers, distributors, transporters,
retailers, d all others involved in the pro-
duction an. marketing processes tend to
become part ? the end cost of the product,
thereby adding o the growth of inflation;
and
Whereas consum and small business-
men, to whom credit vital and who operate
on smaller margins, ul ? ately pay the cost
of interest rate increase and
Whereas the high interes ate policy, con-
tinued over an extended pe , has serevd
to blunt the Federal goal of tacking the
problem of inadequate and bstandard
housing on a massive scale by stemati-
cally reducing the availability of ow-cost
financing; and
Whereas extended periods of high i terest
rates have traditionally and historicall been
followed by recessions: Now therefor be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House f Rep-
resentatives concurring), That it is the
sense of the Congress of the Unl d States
that the administration should ake every
effort to reverse its policy of gh interest
rates in all programs and all levels, and
that the Federal Res oard should take
steps to grad roll the prime interest
rate back ? 6 per centum.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1969?AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 553
Mr. ALLEN proposed an amendment
to the Scott-Hart amendment (No. 544)
tO the bill (H.R. 4249) to extend the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect
to the discriminatory use of tests and
devices, which was ordered to be printed.
(The remarks of Mr. ALLEN when he
proposed the amendment appear later
in the RECORD under the appropriate
heading.)
NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON NOMINA-
TIONS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY
Mr. EASTLAND. Kr. President, the
following nomination has been referred
to and is now pending before the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary:
S 3611
A. Roby Hadden, of Texas, to be U.S.
attorney for the eastern district of Texas
for a term of 4 years, vice Richard B.
Hardee.
On behalf of the Committee on the
Judiciary, notice is hereby given to all
persons interested in this nomination to
file with the committee, in writing, on
or before Wednesday, March 18, 1970,
any representations or objections they
may wish to present concerning the
above nomination, with a further state-
ment whether it is their intention to
appear at any hearing which may be
scheduled.
Mr. President, on behalf of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, I desire to give
notice that a public hearing has been
scheduled for Wednesday, March 18,
1970, at 10:30 am., in room 2228, New
Senate Office Building, on the following
nomination:
Howard B. Turrentine, of California,
to be U.S. district judge for the southern
district of California, vice Fred Kunzel,
deceased.
At the indicated time and place per-
sons interested in the hearing may make
such representations as may be perti-
nent.
The subcommittee consists of the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. BUR-
DICK), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
HrtusicA), and myself as chairman.
NOTICE OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SECURITIES
ON BILLS RELATING TO PROTEC-
TION FOR INVESTORS
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, I wish to announce that the
Subcommittee on Securities of the Com-
mittee on Banking and Currency will
hold hearings on S. 3431, a bill to provide
additional Drotection for investors in
corporate takeover bids; and S. 336, a
bill to increase the exemption under
regulation A of the Securities Act of 1933
from $300,000 to $500,000.
The hearings will be held on Tuesday
and Wednesday, March 24 and 25, 1970,
and will begin at 10 a.m. in room 5302,
New Senate Office Building.
Persons desiring to testify or to submit
written statements in connection with
these hearings should notify Mr. Stephen
J. Paradise, assistant counsel, Senate
Banking and Currency Committee, room
5300, New Senate Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20510; telephone [phone].
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS BY
THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES ON THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE SYSTEM
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I should
like to announce that the Senate Com-
mittee on Armed Services will begin
hearings very soon after we reconvene
following the Easter recess on the Selec-
tive Service System.
The committee will begin considera-
tion of two aspects of the system: First,
the question of how the Selective Serv-
ice System is operating under its present
rules and regulations, and second, the
general matter of possible changes in
existing law as they pertain to the many
aspects of the Selective Service System
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
S 3612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 12, 1970
and as Proposed in the numerous bills
now pending before the committee.
The witnesses at this initial hearing
will be those from the executive branch
who will testify both on the operation of
the System and the executive branch
position on the several pending bills on
the subject.
I would like to note that the hearings
will be only the beginning of the com-
mittee consideration of this entire mat-
ter. Following the executive branch tes-
timony, hearings with other witnesses
will be scheduled as quickly as the com-
mittee work permits.
The committee did not begin Selective
Service hearings on February 15, the
date preViously contemplated and an
because of the delay in nomi-
nating a new director of the Selective
Service System and for the reason that
reports have not been received from the
executive 'branch on its position on the
pending bills on Selective Service.
I would emphasize, Mr. President, that
the committee wil not complete action
on the procurement authorization legis-
lation prior to the Selective Service hear-
ings.
I would note that it would be neces-
sary to resume committee action on the
procurement authorization legislation
following the Selective Service hearings
and, to some extent, hearings on each
will continue for e.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS OF
SENATORS
SOVIET MISSILE THREAT
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, develop-
ment and deployment of Soviet offensive
missiles has proceeded at such a rapid
rate in the last few years that we must
realistically conclude that the United
States is in danger of becoming inferior
to the Soviets in strategic nuclear power.
Recent history of Soviet missile de-
velopment clearly demonstrates a con-
certed effort to match and surpass the
United States. In 1966, the Soviet Union
had 250 ICBM's on launchers. By 1967,
this number had increased to 570 and by
September 1, 1968, 900. This was the best
intelligence we had when phase I of safe..
guard was debated. At that time, Secre-
tary Laird was criticized by Safeguard
opponents for recognizing the fact that
continued Soviet deployment of the giant;
SS-9 missiles was indicative of a desire
on their Part to develop a first-strike
capability.
An of September 1, 1969, the Soviets
had Loqo ICBM's on launchers. It is in-
teresting to note that many of the 160
missiles placed on launching pads were
the awesome SS-9's.
The SS-9 missile is the largest ballistic
missile in existence in the world. It is
capable of, carrying warheads as large
as 25 megatons. When one considers
that a mueli smaller warhead is sufficient
to serve as an effective retalitory weapon
for attacking soft targets, the intended.
use of these giant missiles must be ques-
tioned carefully. A 25-megaton weapon.
Is only useful as a "terror" weapon or
against hardened missile sites. Hardened
missile sites would, of course, only be
attacked in a first strike attempt to de-
stroy the defenders' ability to realiate.
All of these figures illustrate one sim-
ple point. There is ample evidence to be-
lieve that the soviet Union is proceed-
ing to develop a first strike capability.
None of us can be sure of what the
Soviet intent in this regard is. What is
clear, however, is the absurdity of risking
the continued existence of the United
States on the unsupported assumption
that the leaders of the Soviet Union no
longer harbor aggressive designs on the
Free World.
Instead, we should seek to develop the
weapons systems necessary to preserve
the credibility of our deterrent and to
provide effective protection for oureelves.
The Safeguard ABM system, by insur-
ing that no first strike can neutralize our
Minuteman ICBM force, greatly lessens
the likelihood that the Soviet Union or
any other future nuclear force would
make the tragic mistake of initiating a
nuclear holocaust. So long as the leaders
of the Soviet Union remain convinced
that they will be utterly destroyed by a
nuclear exchange, we can be sure that
they will not make that mistake. We can
be sure because it will be in their best
interest to avoid a nuclear war. This, I
suggest, makes far more sense than to
base our security strictly on the good will
of the Soviets.
In addition to providing us with the
necessary weapons s3rstern to prevent a
first strike from becoming attractive to
the Soviets, the Safeguard ABM system
lessens the likelihood of nuclear war in
Yet another way. The initial round of
the SALT talks was considered by all to
have been highly encouraging. There is
good reason to believe that the decision
we made last year to :proceed with phase
I of the Safeguard system was instru-
mental in bringing about meaningful
talks. It would be counter-productive to
turn around now and reject phase II of
Safeguard before the SALT talks recon-
vene. If we sincerely desire that our
President proceed with all deliberate
speed to reach arms limitations agree-
ments, we must give him the tools he
needs to negotiate such an agreement.
In my view, the experience of the first
round of the SALT talks has taught us
that Safeguard may well be the single
most valuable aid our negotiators have.
We must proceed with phase II of Safe-
guard. The taking of any other course of
action would ignore the mounting Soviet
missile threat and undercut the Presi-
dent's ability to negotiate an arms limi-
tation.
In conclusion, I must stress that it is a
naive, dangerous, and unsupportable as-
sumption that the Soviets have some
genuine fear of potential U.S. aggression
and, therefore, if the United States will
simply unilaterally arrest its arms devel-
opment to prove its good intentions, the
Soviets will follow suit or be more
amendable to arms limitations. Experi-
ence proves the contrary. Those who
would thwart technological advance in
strategic weaponry must answer the
question: Are you prepared to see the
United States slide into such a position
of strategic inferiority as to make the
free world vulnerable to nuclear black-
mail in the mid-1970's1
THE ENEQU/TY OF THE DRAFT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last
Sunday's Washington Post contained an
article, written by Richard Harwood,
which documents once again the way In
which the draft favors wealthier and
better educated registrants.
For many years the draft has been
criticized for discriminating against less
fortunate young men. Mr. Harwood
states:
At the heart of this discrimination are
the exemptions and deferments that have
been grafted onto the Selective Service
System.
He goes on to show that exemptions
and deferments?even for extreme hard-
ship?are far more numerous in the
white, middle-class boards of George-
town and the upper Northwest than in
the central-city ghetto boards.
Although Georgetown and the upper North-
west have less than 15 per cent of the D.C.
registrants, they have obtained for their sons
35 per cent of the military reserve and Na-
tional Guard assignments that insulate men
from active duty in Vietnam; 33.5 per cent
of the college student deferments; 100 per
cent of the conscientious objection defer-
ments that permit young men to do civilian
work in lieu of military service; 22 per cent
of the occupational deferments; and more
"extreme hardship" deferments than Boards
7 and 8 in the central city trhettos.
Mr. Harwood shows clearly why there
is currently so much dissatisfaction and
disillusionment with the present draft.
I ask unanimous consent that this article
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD:
[From the Washington Post, March 8, 19701
"HARDSHEP" AMONG THE Racii: THE DRAFT'S
INEQUITY
(By Richard Harwood)
Since John F. Kennedy's tune, Georgetown.
has symbolized for the tourtsts in Washing-
ton the elegant life standards of the Ameri-
can Federal Establishment.
Today it is also a convenient symbol of
the grotesqueries of the draft.
It is an area of considerable wealth and
learning that has obtained for its sons more
"extreme hardship" defermeitts from military
service than a comparable area in the black
ghetto of central Washington.
Georgetown (Board 1) end its affluent
neighbors in the city's upper Northwest
(Board 2), contain 18 percent. of the Selective
service registrants in the District of Colum-
bia. But last year they supplied only 6 per-
cent of the District's draftees-47 men. Ana-
costia, with itS grim rows of public housing,
supplied 107 men. The black middle class in
the far Northeast supplied 129.
That is nothing peculiar to Washington, of
course. Alabama, with a little more than 3.5
million people, supplied only 20 percent
fewer men to the draft last year (6,020) than
New York City, which has a population of
nearly 8 million and supplied 7,214 men.
Incongruities and disparities of that kind
were remarked a few months ago by Charles
Palmer, the president of the National Stu-
dent Association.
"This war," he told a Senate subcommittee,
"is paid for bythe poor."
Young people, unable to attend college, un-
willing to seek defense-related occupations,
young people without the money for ade-
quate medical or legal advice, make up the
bulk of the forces now in Vietnam . . We
raise our cannon fodder on small farms, on
reservations, in the hollows or Appalachia, in
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
Approved FerMengsiefg/itleVE:Stfp1DH14VdR000300040014-7
March 12, 1970 S 3615
Cpl. Thomas G. Dickson, son of Mr.
William R. Dickson, of Norwalk.
Sp4c, Mark S. Diorio, son of Mrs. Lois
A. Prouty, of Santa Cruz.
HM3 Charles P. Duessent, son of Mr.
and Mrs. Harry A. Duessent, of South El
Monte.
L. Cpl. Warren J. Ferguson, Jr., son of
Mr. and Mrs. Warren J. Ferguson, Sr., of
Fullerton.
Rdm, Chief Norman G. Gage, husband
of Mrs. Rosemary Gage, of Imperial
?Beach.
Sp4c. Frank N. Figueroa, husband of
Mrs. Carol Figueroa, of Santa Ana.
Seaman Gary L. Giovanneli, son of
Mrs. Beulah M. Esposito, of San Lean-
dro.
L. Cpl. Barry C. Hiatt, husband of Mrs.
Dawn C. Hiatt, of Fremont.
,Sgt. Phillip F. Hults, father of Miss
Elizabeth A. Hults, of Anaheim.
Sp4c. Mark A. Jenewein, son of Mrs.
Virginia M. Jenewein, of Garden Grove.
Pfc. Dennis E. Joy, son of Mr. and Mrs.
Earl R. Joy, of Imperial.
Lt. Bernard L, Lefevre, son of Mr. an
Mrs. Robert A. Lefevre, of South Laguna.
Pfc. Robert L. Pearson, son of Mr. and
Mrs. Jerry B. Pearson, of Porterville.
Sp4c. Trinidad G. Prieto, son of Mr.
and Mrs. Trinidad Prieto-Perez, of Chi-
ehuahua, Mexico.
Sp4c. David S. Reid, son of Mr. and
Mrs. George S. Reid, of San Pedro.
Capt. Patrick L. Smith, husband of
Mrs. Theresa Smith, of Madero.
Cpl. Donald J. Wade, son of Mr. and
Mrs. Frank Wade, of Santa Cruz.
Pfc. Richard A. Whitmore, son of Mr.
and Mrs. Odeil C. Whitmore, of Haw-
thorne.
Pfc. Richard W. Williams, son of Mr.
Hobart Williams, of Yreka.
Sp4c. Lawrence W. Yochum, son of
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Yochum, of
Burney.
Sgt. Victor F. Zaragoza, son of Mr. and
Mrs. Fiorentino V. Zaragoza, of Holtville.
They bring to 3980 the total number
of Californians killed in the Vietnam
war.
FARM TENANCY IN VIETNAM
Mr. MeGEE. Mr. President, American
officials in Vietnam have long held that
the country has the worst farm tenancy
Pattern in the world, with about 60 per-
cent of the country's land still being
tilled by tenant farmers and owned for
the most part by absentee landlords.
All that, however, is about to change,
as the South Vietnamese Senate has
given its approval to a bill, already
passed in similar form by the House of
Representatives, to turn most of the
land over to the farmers.
This important development was
thoroughly covered in a New York Times
dispatch written by James P. Sterba,
which appeared yesterday. I ask unani-
mous Consent that it be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
LAND REFORM BILL PASSED IN SAIGON?SEN-
ATE VOTES BILL SIMILAR TO HOUSE-APPROVED
MEASURE
(By James P. Sterba)
SAIGON, SOUTH VIETNAM, March 10.?Land
reform inched forward in 'South Vietnam
this week after a six-month pause.
A bill that would abolish absentee owner-
ship and turn over about 60 per cent of the
country's rice land to the tenant farmers
who till it, without charging them for it,
was passed by the Senate yesterday by a
vote of 27 to 2. The House of Representatives
passed a similar bill last Sept. 9.
The original bill was sent to the House
by President Nguyen Van Thieu last July 2
as the first and most important social re-
obvious
im in the cou ryside.
passage, the bill was sent
ouse, where a two-thirds ma-
equired to alter it.
form of his presidency
political benefit
After Sena
back to t
jority
Pre dent Thieu today asked the House, in
rec. until April 1, to convene a special
S ion this week or next to approve the
enate's version. A House steering committee
agreed, but did not set a date.
COMPUTER WOULD PLAY ROLE
If everything goes according to plan, which
rarely happens in this country, the legisla-
tion would wipe out in three years what
ited States rural development experts have
ca d "the worst farm tenancy pattern in
the orld." A giant International Business
Machi ?s Corporation 360 computer in a
building the United States Agency for
Internation Development in downtown Sai-
gon would so.. begin churning out titles
for about 2.5 mil acres of land.
"This was the or hurdle, we think,"
said one United Stat official today in re-
ferring to Senate passa to the bill. While
some American officials for e numerous ad-
ministrative problems in im ementing the
program once it is approved by e President,
the officials were obviously del hted with
the Senate's action.
The program, known as "Land t the Til-
ler," as is the Vietcong's land refo pro-
gram, would expropriate all the hol ngs of
landlords who do not now live on thei land.
With money coming indirectly fro the
United States, the landlords would ceive
from the Saigon Government 20 per c nt of
the value of their land in cash and t rest
in eight-year bonds.
Owner-operators currently living o their
farms would be allowed to keep a m mum
of 37 acres under the Senate bill nd 74
acres under the House version.
Plots of land ranging from 2.5 acres to
12.5 acres, depending on which bi is signed,
would be distributed free to 600 0 to 700,000
peasant farmers.
In many cases the Gayer eat would sim-
ply issue titles for the land which the
farmers have worked for years as tenants.
Titles held by landlords, who collect 25 per
cent or more of the annual crop would be
voided.
Of the 43 million acres of land in South
Vietnam, ? slightly less than 7.5 million acres
are presently under cultivation, mostly in
the Mekong Delta.
After numerous land reform measures dur-
ing three previous administrations starting
with Emperor Bao Dai in the early 1950's,
about 60 per cent of the land continues to
be farmed by tenants.
GREECE AND DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT
Mr. SAXBE. Mr. President, Greece has
lived under all types of governments in
its long and varied history, ranging from
cruel oppression by foreign dictators to
the free exchange of democracy. The lex-
icon of government and politics is filled
with words borrowed from the Greek
originals?tyrant, oligarch, anarchy, and
democracy?and the theories of govern-
ment born in the minds of Greek philos-
ophers have been put into practice by
many nations, including our own United
States. We owe much to Greece and from
the experience of Greece we have learned
a great deal about the organization of
men in these communities we call na-
tions. Perhaps there is now a need to
remind Greece of those lessons of history
and to suggest that Greece reread its own
dictionary of government.
There is no need to reiterate the long
history of Greece. They are well aware
of their heritage, of their history, of
their accomplishments and their fail-
ings, just as we in this Nation are aware
of our history and the tasks awaiting us.
But we can remind the Greek Govern-
ment that within their history there are
many precedents and examples of the
extension of authoritarian rule, once it
was established, and what finally
emerged from the harsh rule of the few.
The social and governmental reforms of
Lycurgus of Sparta became the founda-
tion not for democracy but for the au-
thoritarian rule of the few over the
many. When the aristocrats of Corinth,
Sicyon, and Megara assumed power,
they established tyrannies, and the ty-
rannies were followed by political chaos
and instability. The tyranny of Pisistra-
tus over Athens led not to democracy,
but to the "liberation" of the city by the
Spartans. The reign of the democrat
Pericles was followed by a tyrant, and
the tyrants were followed by civil war,
unrest, a collapse of values, disunity, in-
stability, and defeat at the hands of for-
eign armies.
The history of Greece since its inde-
pendence from the Ottoman Turks in
the 1820's is checkered with swings be-
tween periods of relative democracy and
relative tyranny. Men of good faith do
not want to see another chapter added
to the cycle of democracy-to-tyrtnny-to-
chaos in Greece, but we want for the
nation of Greece a return to democracy.
Democracy has been seized by military
men who are not tyrants as in the Greece
of old, but who have nevertheless gath-
ered all authority in their few hands.
The coup d'etat may very well have
thwarted a takeover by leftist and Com-
munist elements who were going to use
a political rally scheduled for April 24
to ferment a rebellion and eventual
Communist takeover of the government.
After the events of April 1967 when
this group of men forestalled what they
considered to be a serious threat to their
nation, there came a period of strict con-
trols over the freedom of the Greek peo-
ple. As the anxiety of crisis passed and
as the new leaders of the government
settled into their self-appointed jobs,
many of the strictures and bans were re-
laxed, but some still prevail. Parliamen-
tary government remains in suspension.
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
S3616
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE March 12, 1970
Many of the individual rights of the
Greek People are circumscribed by law.
Other rights of the Greek people have
been voided by intimidation, as, for ex-
ample, in the case of free speech where
the Greek people are afraid of discussing
politics for fear their conversations may
be construed as being in opposition to
the government.
The present Greek Government has
promised, and in some cases made good
on those promises, to restore some of the
freedoms of democratic government. The
government said it would write a new
constitution, present it to the people for
their approval, and implement it after
Lt had been approved. This has been done.
There is a new constitution in effect, but
not all of its provisions have been im-
plemented. The government said it would
restore free press, and it has, but only a
partial restoration of one of democracy's
most basic rights has been made. The
government retains the right to decide
what news may or may not be published
or broadcast to the people. The govern-
ment said it would return control over
municipalities and Provinces to the local
authorities. They have made 'good on this
promise also, but the government con-
tinues to appoint certain local admin-
istrators. In short, the return to demo-
cratic government proinised by the lead-
ers of the military Junta now in control
of Greece has been only partially Im-
plemented. There ere several remaining
tasks to be done before Greece can again
be numbered among the free and dem-
ocratic nations of the world.
While recognizing the need for a
cautious approach to the full restoration
of rights in Greece, I believe that the
Greek Government could act with more
speed in returning Greece to a democratic
course. I do not ask for or demand over-
night miracles, but reserve the right to
ask for a reasonable estimation of how
long the junta envisions the process may
take, and for an outline of the steps that
are necessary for the restotation of
democratic government. I ask these
questions in good faith, not in tones of
condemnation of the regime, of the 'gov-
ernment, or of the people of Greece. I
ask because the American people are the
friends of Greece and we want what is
best for the Greek nation.
The colonels who seized power in
Greece ostensibly did so because they
feared for the security of their nation.
The United States also has a stake in
the security of Greece, as we ably dem-
onstrated when we extended assist-
ance to Greece in 1947 for its fight
against Communist subversion, and
through our membership and participa-
tion in the North Atlantic Treaty Or-
ganization. We would like to see Greece
remain strong and free, and we have
committed ourselves to that end throagh
NATO and through our continued co-
operation with the Government of
Greece. The integrity of NATO depends
to a great extent upon the continuation
of freedom and liberty among' the mem-
bers of the alliance, including Greece.
So that the United States and the NATO
alliance could further demonstrate to
the world our very firm commitment to
democratic principles and our equally
firm defiance of those totalitarian gov-
ernments which would seek to subvert
our democracy, I ask these questions of
the government in Athens: What plans
do you have for free elections? What is
your program for the extinction of your
government-by-fiat and the reinstitution
of government-by-choice? When will
parliamentary government be returned
to Greece? When will Greece again be
a democracy? I ask not as accuser or
critic, but as a concerned friend. I hope
the Government oil Greece will return
oir friendship by offering answers.
THE FIGHT AGAINST INFLATION
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, Prof.
Melville J. Ulmer, of the University of
Maryland, is an economist of fresh view-
point and ideas worth the consideration
of Senators. I met with him yesterday
to explore with him further the views
e xpressed in his book and articles which
I have studied with great interest. As I,
he feels that it is wrong to agree that the
present administration has no economic
choices in the fight against inflation ex-
cept those which will necessarily put
more people out of work. Yesterday's
Washington Post published a letter to
the editor from him and I ask unani-
mous consent that it may be printed at
teis point in the ReCORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Your editorial of February 18 is quite right
in viewing the economic outlook as one of
"painful economic adjustment." Most econ-
omists think that it may be even more pain-
ful, in terms of unemployment than the ad-
ministration now concedes. You are seriously
wrong, however, in characterizing this ad-
ministration-induced slowdown or recession
a,3 In any sense a. "remedy," and also in dis-
missing without a hearing all other possible
alternative programs.
At beet, the Council of Economic Advisers
promises that the inflationary rate will be
down to 31/2 percent, on an annual basis, by
the end of this year. But this is a mighty
fast clip; if continued, It would double the
price leVeI in 20 years, eating up the value of
pension funds almost as fast as they are
accumulated. More important, unemploy-
ntent is expected to be materially higher
than it is now at the end of the year. Some
think it may reach 6 percent of the labor
force. Few outside government put the pros-
pective rate at much less than 5 percent.
So what are we to do then, in line with
tins policy, after the 1970 elections? Renew
toe assault on inflation, getting the price
rise down lower but creating more unem-
ployment? Relax on unemployment and let
prices resume their I.968-1969 gallop? Main-
tain the status quo, with excessive unem-
ployment and excessive inflation persisting
hand in hand? These seem to be the only
alternatives offered by present policy.
Viewed in this light, the administration's
current clampdown on economic activity is
not a remedy for anything. It simply pro-
v ides another link in the chain of ups and
?owns that have been in progress since
World War II. We never for very long, over
that period, have been without too much in-
flation, too much unemployment, or both.
It is proper, I think, to sympathize with
tile administration in tha real difficulties in-
volved in this economic dilemma. But your
editorial goes much too far. It states, at
different points, that "no one can come forth
with a less risky remedy," and "there is no
other known remedy at hand." These as-
sertions do less than justice to economists.
like myself, who have offered alternative
programs in publicly available books and ar-
ticles. Perhaps it will turn out, from an eco-
nomic standpoint, that this really is the
best of all possible worlds, but few of us
outside the administration. I think, share
The Washington Post's complacent confi-
dence that it most certainly is!
adervirts J. ULMER.
SALT: A CALL TO STATESMANSHIP
a?ease
Mr.
BROOKE. Mr. President, the im-
pending resumption of the Strategic
Arms Limitations Talks presents an op-
portunity which may not come again to
promote the security of mankind
through reasonable international agree-
ments. It is imperative that this oppor-
tunity not be lost.
The problems to be resolved in the
SALT negotiations are real and profound.
They can only be made more difficult by
ill-considered actions or statements on
either side. Mutual suspicion between the
Soviet Union and the United States re-
mains high. Every effort must be made
to provide a solid basis for mutual con-
fidence in both sides' commitment to
arms control.
In an historic statoment last week-
end the Soviet Union, speaking through
an extensive article in Pravda, reviewed
at length a number of issues bearing on
the SALT negotiations. This important
document, though weighted down with
the customary ideological baggage which
has impeded international communica-
tion for so long, is distinguished pri-
marily by a forthright and perceptive
view of the present strategic situation.
The Soviet Union makes clear that no
advantage can be gained from a new
round in the strategic arms race. For a
further spiral in the weapons competi-
tion will not change the fundamental
correlation of force between the two
countries. Each nation will do what is
required to maintain it devastating re-
taliatory capability.
As the Pravda article indicates, the
only result of a continuation of the arms
race will be the waste of vast resources
and the heightening of world tensions.
Pravda endorses the recent comment
by McGeorge Bundy:
A strategic nuclear engagement could not
lead to any kind of gain either from the view-
point of national interests or from the view-
point of ideology or the tndividual political
positions of any leader in this or that coun-
try. None of the weapons systems now seem-
ingly within the reach of this or that side
can change this fact.
The Pravda article is a remarkable ex-
pression of the futility of the arms race
and of the urgency of successful nego-
tiations in SALT.
The article is also marked by sharp
criticism of American plans to continue
work on certain strategic weapons. It re-
veals the kind of apprehension about
American intentions which our country
has often felt toward the Soviet Union.
Pravda contrasts the United States pro-
fessed interests in SALT with its re-
ported persistence in certain strategic
programs. I think it is of the utmost im-
portance for both countries to maintain
a sense of balance in judging each other's
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
197Ofkpproved Foe 14-7 MarA S 3617
behavior at this critical juncture. The
Soviet Union should not build exagger-
ated fears on the basis of American ef-
forts to explore various strategic options
which might be required if the SALT
talks are unsuccessful. For example, re-
search on improved hard-point AM sys-
tems and preliminary work on measures
to reduce the vulnerability of the Ameri-
can deterrent should not cause undue
alarm in Moscow.
Most of Secretary Laird's programs for
fiscal 1971 are of this character; they
are contingency programs which can
certainly be suspended as progress occurs
in SALT.
At the same time, however, the United
States must exercise restraint on any
new strategic commitments which might
be difficult to reverse. It is for that rea-
son that a growing number of Senators
and Congressmen are urging the Presi-
dent to postpone deployment of Multiple
Independently Targetable Reentry -Ve-
hicles--M1RV. There is no requirement
for such weapons at this time, and post-
ponement of MIRV deployment could af-
ford a vital opportunity to explore Soviet
Intentions and the possibility for early
agreements in. the SALT conference
which reconvenes in April.
This urgent recommendation is
grounded not on any naive view of Soviet
good will, but on a hard-headed calcu-
lation of our two countries' mutual in-
terest in devising a stable strategic rela-
tionship at the present level, where both
sides have a credible deterrent, rather
than at a higher level which can only be
reached through a dangerous transi-
tional phase which will call into ques-
tion that deterrent. The true naivet?
consists of thoughtless reliance on the
outworn myth that one cannot exercise
restraint without creating the impression
of weakness. Our confidence in our own
deterrent capability should be sufficient
to permit such restraint without creating
false illusions in Moscow. Certainly we
must be wary of the Soviet Union, whose
purposes remain to be tested in the
SALT negotiations and otherwise; but
we must also be wary of any tendency
on our own part to drift into unnecessary
? weapons deployments which only render
more remote the effective arms limita-
tions required for security in the nuclear
era. Some kind of MIRY deployment
inaY ultimately be required, especially if
Soviet Al3M forces grow substantially,
but premature installation of these
weapons would be tragically unwise.
Pravda states the case well when it
says:
Despite the difficulties, it is obvious that
there is still time and there _are still possi-
bilities for reaching an understanding which
all states await and by which they will gain.
. , . If both sides intend to hold honest talks
Without striving to obtain any unilateral
military advantages and if the negotiations
proceed from the need to insure equal secur-
ity for both sides . . then one can count on
achieving agreed solutions.
Mr. President I ask that the text of the
Pravda article, entitled "An Important
Problem," be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being -no objection the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM
The Soviet-American talks on limitation
of the strategic arms race which took place
at the end of last year in Helsinki and are
to be resumed in Vienna on 16 April lire
arousing the unremitting interest of the
international public. It is evident that a great
deal in insuring international security will
depend on whether or not there is success in
ending or at least restricting this race.
The Soviet Union unswervingly advocates
the peaceful coexistence of States, irrespec-
tive of their social systems, peace, and se-
curity. Its consistent and principled position
aimed at relaxing international tension and
ending the arms race is widely known. At its
foundation lies people's fundamental in-
terests?the strengthening of peace and the
establishment of good relations between
States. This is an ineradicable feature of
Soviet foreign policy.
General and complete disarmament is the
most radical method of eliminating the dan-
gers connected with the buildup of increas-
ingly more powerful means of destruction.
During the entire history of the Soviet state,
the Soviet Government has repeatedly made
proposals for implementing such disarma-
ment.
In waging the struggle for general and
complete disarmament, our state by no
means believes that one can be guided by
the principle of "all or nothing." Given the
current continuing process of building up
armaments, including the most destructive,
the interests of the struggle for peace de-
mand the utilization of all opportunities for
restricting the arms race, reducing the mili-
tary danger, and relaxing international ten-
sion.
Proceeding from this, the Soviet Union has
proposed and now proposes the implementa-
tion, through the reaching of agreement, of
a number of measures that would reduce
tension and the scale of the arms race whip-
ped up by aggressive imperialist circles and
avert the possibility of unleashing a thermo-
nuclear war. Limitation of the strategic arms
race could become an important and timely
step in this direction.
The 1963 Moscow treaty banning nuclear
tests, the 1967 [treaty] on space which par-
ticularly envisaged banning the placing of
nuclear weapons in space orbits and on the
moon and other heavenly bodies, the nuclear
weapons nonproliferation treaty, and cer-
tain other international agreements con-
stituted the beginning of the movement in
that direction. Article six of the nonprolifer-
ation treaty, which came into force on 5
March of this year, specially provides that its
participants commit themselves to conduct
in a spirit of good will talks on effective meas-
ures for the ending of the nuclear arms race
and for nuclear disarmament and also talks
on a treaty on general and complete dis-
armament under strict and effective interna-
tional control.
Undoubtedly, the efforts not of one or two
States but the united efforts of the world's
states are required to resolve the problem
of general and complete disarmament. Nu-
clear disarmament requires the participation
of all nuclear states. At the same time the
correlation of strategic forces on an interna-
tional scale is now such that the efforts of
the United States and' the Soviet Union,
which possess the greatest nuclear potential,
aimed at limitation of the strategic arms
race could also greatly promote the in-
terests of the security of other countries in
addition to the interests of universal peace.
Of course, to achieve this it is necessary that
a serious and honest approach be made by
the sides?an approach shorn of the inten-
tion to achieve unilateral advantages by
means of the talks or to utilize the talks as
a coVer for the development of a new round
of the arms race.
In its approach to resolving the problem
of limiting the strategic arms race, as in it,
approach to the disarmament problem as a
whole, the Soviet Union is invariably guided
by the interests of strengthening general
security and consolidating peace.
The present situation is such that science
and technology have enabled man not only
to harness the power of the atom, to create
cybernetic and computer devices which con-
siderably ease man's mental labor, to build
new branches of industry, to revolu-
tionize the science of control, and to ac-
complish a breakthrough into space, but
have also placed in man's hands weapons
of destruction that are monstrous in force.
Recent years have seen the creation of new
generations of missiles, submarines, bomb-
ers, and other offensive means much more
powerful and yet at the same time less
vulnerable than their predecessors. The
emergence of these new offensive means
brought into existence means of combating
them, and this, in turn, resulted in a fur-
ther improvement in offensive means. Thus
there has arisen the real threat of the be-
ginning of a new stage in the arms race,
which on the political and military plane
means intensification of the danger of a
world thermonuclear conflict.
The military-strategic correlation of
forces in the world makes quite unrealistic
any of the calculations of western militarist
circles about the possibility of victory in a
thermonuclear war. Judging by everything, a
new spiral in the arms race would not change
the essence of this correlation. If an un-
restricted strategic arms race were to take
place, one could expect an increase in the
illusions of aggressive imperialist circles
about the possibilities of achieving military
superiority and, consequently, also in thP
temptation to put fate to the test by un-
leashing a thermonuclear war.
A THERMONUCLEAR WAR
On the admission of many bourgeois fig-
ures in the west who are fully informed
about the true state oE things, with each
passing year the arms race becomes increas-
ingly more unpromising. Thus McGeorge
Bundy, former adviser to Presidents John-
son and Kennedy on questions of security
and military strategy, wrote recently: "A
strategic nuclear engagement could not lead
to any kind of gain either from the view-
point of national interests or from the view-
point of ideology or the individual political
positions of any leader in this or that coun-
try. None of the weapons systems now seem-
ingly within the reach of this or that side
can change this fact."
Meanwhile, the race for strategic offensive
and defensive weapons is consuming tre-
mendous resources. According to estimates
by the American press, the cost of building
the Safeguard ABM system, which is now
being created in the United States, will be
nearly 50 billion dollars. If the strategic
arms race is not halted, there may be a
repeat of what happened regarding nuclear
weapons when in 1946, as a result of the
refusal of the United States and other west-
ern countries to accept sound and concrete
Soviet proposals on banning and liquidating
nuclear weapons, the nuclear arms race
began.
How then can a barrier be erected on the
path of a further strategic arms race? The
USSR and the United States have set about
finding an answer to this question in Hel-
sinki. The very fact that talks on such an
important question have begun between the
USSR and the United States has met with
broad support by the peace-loving public
and more farsighted political and govern-
mental figures, including those in western
countries. Commenting on the Helsinki talks,
the American newspaper Christian Science
Monitor wrote that "in the United States
the public yearns for an end to the fruitless
accumulation of weapons." The world press
has noted the Soviet Union's serious and
businesslike approach toward the talks?an
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
S 3618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March -7.2,?T9 70
approfteh that has also been recognized by
U.S. officials, namely chief of the UB. delega-
tion G. Smith and delegation member and
former U.S. ambassadot to Moscow L.
Thompson at a press conference in Washing-
ton on 30 December 1969.
However, there are also forces--and these,
too, are in the West?that neither the talks
on restriction ot strategic weapons nor even
less the prospect of agreement between the
USSR and the United States on this question
suit. For example, the West German news-
paper Die Welt and certain other press
organs, reflecting the attitude of the more
reactionary militarist circles of the German
Federal Republic, have actually spoken out
against the Soviet-American talks on limita-
tion of the strategic arms race. The enemies
of the restriction of the strategic arms race
in the United States itself have also been
more active recently.
It is impossible to pass over the fact that
precisely now, on 'the threshold of the round
of talks in Vienna, many U.S. newspapers
and journals are writing less often about
restrictions of the strategic arms race while
giving somewhat more space to a diametrical-
ly opposed theme?the question of creating
and developing new strategic weapons sys-
tems. In essence, the beginning of this cam-
paign was launched by U.S. Defense Secre-
tary Laird. The leader of the U.S. military
department recently. made a whole series of
public speeches in which he persistently
called for the buildup of various strategic
weapons systems. In particular, Laird zealous-
ly insisted that development of the safe-
guard ABM system should be accelerated in
the United States now, and he is fighting
for Congress to increase appropriations for
this purpose.
Nor is it possible not to be put on the
alert by how often' and how many times the
defense secretary discusses Pentagon plans
for the creation of new offensive strategic
weapons systems. For example, at a press
conference on 7 January Laird designated "as
most important tasks" creation of a new
strategic bomber to replace the B-52 and
development of improved long-range under-
water offensive systems. The defense setre-
tary also advocated development of an im-
proved offensive intercontinental ballistics
missile and so forth. By Laird's own admis-
sion, many of the projects mentioned above
are already in the "research and develop-
ment" stage.
It is characteristic that whereas last year
in seeking congressional approval of appro-
priations, first of all, for the safeguard sys-
tem the U.S. Government certified that the
latter's further development would depend
to a large extent on the results of the SALT
talks with the USSR. U.S. Government fig-
ures now prefer not to recall this.
The U.S. Defense Secretary lavishly spices
his demands for intensification of the arms
race with references to the mythical "Soviet
threat." The utter groundlessness of such ac-
cusations directed against the Soviet Union
is obvious. It is well known that measures
implemented in the USSR during the post-
war period to strengthen its defense capa-
bility were a reply to the unrestrained pace
in nuclear missiles and other weapons
whipped up by the United States. It suffices
to recall that the notorious theory of the
need to insure military supremacy over the
Soviet Union has been rife in the United
Statee, Particularly in the military circles.
The New York Post- reasonably suggested:
"In the light of the Pentagon's traditional
negative approach toward disarmament, it is
logical to suspect that this argument is de-
signed to prevent the United States tit=
holding the talks."
HOLDING elm TALKS
The American press is paying attention to
the fact that the Voices of those Who seek
an increase in appropriations for military
preparations are resounding ever louder in
Washington. The New York Times recently
wrote: "In the process of elaborating the
American position in the talks with the
Soviet Union on the restriction of strategic
weapons, certain alarraing signs of the mili-
tary's excessive influence have come to
light . ? ?''
In connection with Laird's increasingly
frequent speeches in favor of the buildup of
U.S. strategic weapons, many American ob-
servers point out that this answers the inter-
ests of the military-industrial complex. It is
no secret that the military-industrial com-
plex would like to begin a new expensive
round in the strategic arms race, whip up a
militaristic tendency I a Washington's foreign
policy, and lead matters to a further exacer-
bation of international tension.
Laird's traditional inclination to make bel-
licose speeches does not surprise us, but
nobody can close his eyes to the fact that
Laird occupies the responsible post of a
member of the Government. Each of Laird's
public statements is lightly regarded by the
public as a statement on or a reflection of
the position of U.S. ruling circles. One must
ask to what extent Defense Secretary Laird's
militaristic appeals reflect the position of
the U.S. Government.
A number of observers, including those in
the United States Mei, ask this question
with a certain uneasiness: Is not this entire
campaign in the United States for the benefit
of further development of the arms race a
new relapse of the old American political dis-
ease, which acquired, in the time of J. F.
Dulles, sad notoriety under the name of policy
"from a position of strength?" What is the
correlation between the well-intentioned
official speeches which ring out at times in
the United States in connection with nego-
tiations and those ,deeds and tendencies
manifest in practice in developing the stra-
tegic arms race'? Is it really not clear that
the essence of the position is put to the test
by actions, by practice, and not by state-
ments for the sake oi effect when they are
not confirmed by facts and not translated
into life?
If vestiges of former notions from which
even J. F. Dulles was forced to depart in his
final years as Secretary of State are really
being reborn in the United States, then such
a development of events cannot fail to give
rise to most serious ?doubts about the sin-
cerity of U.S. intentions with regard to talks
'with the Soviet Union on limitation of the
strategic arms race.
History has many times irrefutably proved
the entire groundless and illusionary quality
of the calculations of those who have tried
to talk to the Soviet Union "from a posi-
tion of strength." The policy of pressure
on the USSR is an attempt using unsuitable
means. No one can or should have any il-
lusions on this score. The past half century
has shown in deeds the ability of the Work-
ing class and all working people of the So-
viet Union to prove the firmness of their so-
cialist gains and of the international posi-
tions of our motherland. But the question
is invariably asked: Do the latest statements
by Washington officials about the further
buildup of armaments not reflect the grow-
ing influence of those military-political
forces in the United States which do not
want agreement with the USSR on strategic
arms limitations? Such a question has re-
cently been appearing more and more fre-
quently on the pages of the American press,
too.
The solution to questions connected with
limitation of the strategic arms race is un-
doubtedly not the simplest of tasks. This
is explained not only by the nature of these
armaments but also by the fact that the so-
lution of problems connected with them
affects a sensitive problem for every state?
the problem of national security.
All the same, despite tee difficulties, it is
obvious that there is still time and there are
still possibilities for reaching an understand-
ing which all states await and by which
they will gain. However. an indispensable
condition for this, as the e.sperience of inter-
national relations convincingly proves, is the
existence of good will on both sides and the
quest for a mutually acceptable agreement.
If both sides intend to :mid honest talks
without striving to obtain any unilaterally
military advantages and if the negotiations
proceed from the need to insure equal secu-
rity for both sides with the simultaneous
complete consideration oi the task of re-
ducing military danger end consolidating
peace in general, then one can count on
achieving agreed solutions. But if one of the
sides tries to use the talks merely as a screen
for abetting the strategic arms race, then
naturally the full weight of political respon-
sibility for all the conseeuences of such a
position will fall unit.
TALL ON 1:17
As the Soviet delegation in Helsinki em-
phasized. the Soviet Union is approaching
the talks with the most serious intentions
and is striving to achieve a mutually DC-
ceptable and mutually beneficial understand-
ing. At the basis of the Soviet approach to
the problem of restricting strategic arms
there is no desire to acquire any unilateral
additional advantages for itself in the sphere
of safeguarding just its security. The Soviet
Union has at its disposal an arsenal of modern
weapons enabling the interests of the se-
curity of the USSR and its allies to be guar-
anteed to the necessary degree. The Soviet
Union's position on this question is deter-
mined by the concern for strengthening in-
ternational security without harming the in-
terests of all other countries.
Solution of the disarmament problem
would help to release from the sphere of
military production colossal means which
are expended on armaments throughout the
world and whose utiliatioe for the needs of
economic development could assist the
scientific, technical, and economic progress
of all mankind, including the most developed
capitalist countries where the ostentatious
prosperity of the minority cannot conceal, by
admission even of bourgeois governments
and the press, the glaring elementary needs
and requirements of the working majority.
The Soviet Union has confirmed by deeds
its sincere interest in contributing by all
possible means to the solution of the tasks
which even more acutely face mankind in
the field of restraining the arms race and of
advancing along the path leading to partial
disarmament measures and to universal and
complete disarmament. Only such a path
can provide an effective solution to problems
connected with insuring a stable peace.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, let me
conclude by summarizing the essential
points to be drawn from the present
strategic stalemate. Both the United
States and the Soviet Union today have
credible mutual deterrence for the fore--
seeable future. No new weapons can alter
these fundamental facts; they can only
drain billions of dollars in precious re-
sources from both countries and gravely
complicate the relations between them.
Under these circumstances, and con-
sidering the very real danger that the
pace of technological innovation may
exceed that of political accommodation,
I believe there is an overwhelming case
for the United States to propose an in-
terim freeze of strategic weapons as the
first order of business when the SALT
negotiations resume. No further testing
or deployment of MIRV? no additions to
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
jliaTch ?21 /976,13Proved FottelmitgAR3WAVOgReitipPIW3i3TB000300040014-7
the offensive missile forces, no expan-
sion of ABM systems beyond the? de-
ployments already planned?an agree-
ment to hold the lines on these points
would buy time to devise effective verifi-
cation and controls for a durable stra-
tegic equilibrium. As I have said many
times, the leading edge of this tech-
nological behemoth is MIRV develop-
ment and deployment. And I am con-
vinced that an initial effort should be
made to deal with this factor. tut a
more general strategic freeze encompass-
ing MIRV and other items should be
proposed, perhaps for a period of 2 years.
Since both sides now have effective de-
terence they could accept such an interim
freeze With great assurance that the
balance would not be disturbed signif-
icantly in the short run. Such a freeze is
essential if the momentum of technology
Is not to smother the prospects for suc-
cess in the SALT negotiations.
Seldom in history has there been, so
immense an opportunity and so pro-
found a responsibility for creative polit-
ical leadership. The enlightened initia-
tive of statesmen on both sides is indis-
pensable. For the sake of all mankind, let
Us not be found wanting.
THE BOMBING OF LAOS
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, one of the
more unfortunate aspects of the recent
flurry of debate over the situation in
Laos is the clrumfire, as Columnist 'Wil-
liam S. White calls it, of calls to halt
the bombing in Laos.
This, of course, could prove disastrous
to American troops in Vietnam and to
the South Vietnamese people, for it would
Mean that Laos and the No Chi Minh
trail would become privileged sanctua-
ries and that North Vietnam's men and
,
supplies could flow southward without
Interdiction. Mr. White, in a column pub-
lished in today's Washington Post, makes
this point most effectively. I ask unani-
mous consent that his column be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection the article
Was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NEW DOVE CAMPAIGN ON LAOS PERILS WAR
POSITION or U.S.
(By William S. White)
The hour of maximum peril to any pos-
sibility of effective American prosecution of
even a limited war in. Vietnam is now ,at
hand.
The long and short of it is that here at
home the all-out anti-war doves have opened
a campaign whose real and ultimate aim is
to force a halt to all American bombing
operations over 'Laos. End this bombing and
you make a privileged sanctuary of the most
vital of all the supply lines of the North
Vietnamese Communist enemy?the Ho Chi
Minh trail running southward from Red
Claina,
And, as so often before, the Communists
themselves are, Blimiltaneou,sly exploiting
these domestic political pressures upon
President Nixon toward the same edd?"halt
the bombing." The Communist Pathet Lao.
the fifth-column Laotian equivalent of the
Communist Vietcong in South Vietnam it-
Self, is extending "peace proposals" to the
neittralist government of Laos?provided,
that is, that first of all the American air
arm is withdrawn,
Nobody is suggesting that the Senate doves
are conaciously cooperating with the enemy
for what would amount to a catastrophe to
the American and allied military position In
all Southeast Asia. Nevertheless, the fact is
that this druniflre from the more extreme
doves over Laos is th,e most damaging of all
their endless clamors over all the years in
which they have so doggedly fought to bring
about what would amount to American sur-
render in Vietnam.
For if all the bombing action over Laos
should be foreclosed?and all this bombing
is done with the consent and request of a
Laotian government to which the Commu-
nists themselves once agreed and helped set
up?it would mean the beginning of the
end. It would mean, specifically, the begin-
ning of the end of any hope, however remote,
for any negotiated settlement that would
not come down to an American defeat.
If the President should be forced into this
action of folly and disaster, he might as well
bring the troops home from South Vietnam
on a far faster schedule than any heretofore
ever contemplated.
The precariously neutral state of Laos
would become Communist within 30 days.
Already, and quite apart from the Pathert Lao
fifth column, at least 50,000 North Vietnam-
ese troops are in Laos.
"Stop the bombing" was, of course, the
cry for years, and at last the successful cry,
of the American doves when they spoke of
North Vietnam. This concession by the
United States was in itself deeply dartgerouS;
but it could be borne, if barely, because of
the presence in nearby Laos of American air
power. If our pilots could no longer attack
our enemies in North Vietnam, they could
at least interrupt their line of men and guns
coming down the Ho Chi Minh trail. If "sfop
the bombing" in Laos is also to be a success-
ful cry?and this columnist hopes and be-
lieves it will not be?that, as the saying goes,
will be the ball game so far as Vietnam is
concerned.
The form of "criticism" now coming from
the floor of the enate is all but unexampled
in that repeatedly it compels the disclosure
of strictly military informition.
Mr. Nixon, in summary; faces as to Laos a
suddenly and vastly escalated dove attack
just when it had begun to appear that his
policy of gradual but honorable disengage-
ment from Vietnam was going to be given
some chance to work itself out.
FEDERAL MACHINERY RENDERS
RELIEF TO INDIVIDUAL
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, yesterday
an exchange of correspondence between
one of my constituents and the Inter-
state Cenimerce Commission was called
to my personal attention. This corre-
spondence underscores the proposition
that the machinery within the Federal
Government can be directed to render
relief to the individual.
Last December, I received a letter from
Mr. William W. Bancroft requesting my
assistance in locating his wife's winter
clothes, which had been lost in transit
from California to Pennsylvania. I re-
ferred the letter to the relevant Govern-
ment agency, in this case the ICC, for
any assistance or guidance they might
render on behalf of the Bancrofts.
The ICC went into action immediately,
and on February 19 it received the sub-
sequent correspondence from Mr. Ban-
croft which read, in part., as follows:
la December I wrote Senator Scorr for
assistance in locating my wife's winter
S 3619
clothes, which had been lost In transit. . . .
At that time I was convinced they were
irrevocably gone . . . and perhaps I was
merely registering a complaint with my
State ('s) Senator.
(Thereafter) we drove up to Farmingdale,
New York, to pick up her last year's styles.
(Now, as a result of the I.C.C.'s help) my
wife has two sets of winter clothes, which
seems to please her.
I would like to thank you ... for all your
assistance to me. I had not expected to see
the clothes again.
This is clear and convincing evidence,
Mr. President, that our Federal regu-
latory agencies do care about the little
person and will come to his aid against
the massive and sometimes unresponsive
machinery of big industry when so re-
quested.
I want to take this opportunity, there-
fore, to commend the ICC for responding
to pleas at the personal level.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bancroft's wife has
her winter clothes just in time to worry
about the hemlines.
DEMONSTRATION GRANTS TO AD-
MINISTER 0E0 PROGRAMS
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, my office
was informed this week by a representa-
tve of the Office of Economic Opportu-
nity that the State of Oklahoma and 15
other States?Alaska, Arkansas, Cali-
fornia, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana,
Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
West Virginia?will :receive demonstra-
tion grants to administer 0E0 programs.
The information I have received is that
the States involved will perform the serv-
ices now being performed by field repre-
sentatives of 0E0. State personnel
would, under the grant, assist grantees
in the preparation of grant applications;
would give funding guidance; would
monitor the performance of the grantees
for the purpose of determining that the
grantees are maintaining proper book-
keeping procedures and other related
purposes; would respond to requests for
information; and when new guidelines
are announced, would hold information
meetings. In addition, the States would
"make the first determination on eli-
gibility for funding, although it is
claimed that this determination would
be limited to a determination of com-
pliance with State laws by the grantee.
No written materials were furnished
my office and obviously all of the
details of the grants are not set forth
above.
However, enough information about
this new policy has been furnished to
cause me to be very much concerned and
disturbed about it. During the last ses-
sion, Congress decided specifically
against giving control of 0E0 antipov-
erty programs to the States. Mr. Rums-
feld himself stated al; that time that to
take such action would be "disastrous"
to his agency. Yet, now it would appear
that what is being proposed in these
demonstration grants would be a step in
that direction.
I have contacted the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare to determine
whether they have been contacted con-
cerning the demonstration grants and
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7
S3620 CONGRESSION AL RECORD SENATE Mar ch?D, 1970
learned that they had not been. Since
nothing has been furnished in writing,
and since it had appeared on the bash; of
the information that I have been fur-
nished, that the proposed grants may be
in contravention of action taken by Con-
gress I think it would be desirable for the
the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare to have hearings on this matter, and
I have urged the committee to do so. The
Senate and Congress are entitled to more
answers than have to date been given if
they are going to be expected to approve
this procedure and if a majority of them
are going to be willing to continue to
support the 0E0 program generally.
TAX REFORM AND FOUNDATIONS
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, when the
Tax Reform Act was passed in Decem-
ber, many Members of Congress ex-
pressed their concern and dismay over
the final version.
One of the controversial sections of
this bill was in reference to foundations.
In order to keep foundation funds out of
particular political campaigns, Congress
provided for restraints such as the pro-
vision referring to the use of foundation
funds for voter registration.
Now one foundation has given its reply
to this legislation in a very thoughtful
report by McGeorge Bundy in the Ford
Foundation's annual report. In this re-
port, Mr. Bundy raises both the problems
and the merits of what this Congress has
made the law of the land. I believe that
it is a Worthwhile report that should be
read by every Member of Congress.
On March 8, the Washington Post pub-
lished an editorial on this issue which
I believe is a worthwhile review of Mr.
Bundy's report.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the editorial be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RscoaD,
as follows:
FOUNDATIONS AND THE NEW TAX LAW
Foundations which are trying to adjust to
the new Tax Reform Act will find both
sympathy and wise counsel in McGeorge
:Bundy's approach to the problem in the an-
nual report of the Ford Foundation. Mr.
Bundy is not one of those who see the new
law as a vicious and unwarranted assault
on the fbundations. He takes the restrained
and sensible view that "no group is above
regulation, and there is no safety In any
notion of an immunity conferred by some
divine right of private charity to do just as
it pleases."
Although Mr. Bundy believes that "the
freedom of the foundations is their most
precious asset," he also acknowledges that
this freedom "requires enough regulation to
provide confidence, In Congress and in the
country, that serious abuses are being pre-
vented." He writes sympathetically of the
provision forbidding self-dealing (between
foundations and their controlling parties)
and of the requirement that foundations
gradually divest themselves of controlling
interests in particular Companies. Likewise
he approves the requirement that founda-
tions pay out at least 6 per cent of their
assets or full net investment income, which-
ever is higher, each year for charitable pur-
poses.
Instead of denouncing Congress for strik-
ing at the travel and study awards Which
the Ford Foundation had given to former
members of the late Sen. Robert Kennedy's
staff, Mr. Bundy prudently expresses satis-
faction that a "workable solution" of the
problem was found--we say prudently be-
cause he had something to do with creating
the problem by making the awards. Con-
gress required an "objective and nondiscrim-
inatory basis" 102' such awards under proce-
dures to be approved by the Treasury. The
president of the Ford Foundation thinks the
restraints laid upon the use of foundation
funds for voters registration may prove to be
unduly restrictive, tut he recognizes that
Congress was actuated by a legitimate aim--
to keep foundation funds out of particular
political campaigns.
One of the most difficult problems which
Congress passed on to the Treasury experts
who are now writing regulations for the new
law is the insulation of the legislative process
from tax-exempt lobbying or propaganda.
The old law prohibits charitable organiza-
tions from devoting any "substantial" por-
tion of their activity to influencing legisla-
tion. The new law extends this restriction
to all such activities, even though "insub-
si antial." Jnce as Mr. Bundy points out,
"there almost no subject a foundation
touch that may not sooner or later have
an e1? on legislation," the regulations now
in pfeparation will have to be drawn with
th utmost care to avoid stifling the vast
a ount of good work the foundations do
i the spheres of education, social improve-
ent and public: enlightenment.
We share Mr. Bundy's concern over the 4
per cent excise tax which Congress levied
on the net investment income of the founda-
ions. Many foundations supported the
reasury's idea of an "audit fee" to cover
e government's outlay for regulating the
to dations, but Congress went substantially
bey d this, apparently on the theory that
weal y foundations should carry some part
of the x burden. Actually, however, as the
preside of the Ford Foundation pointedly
notes, th esult is "a tax on charity."
A serious uestion Is also raised about the
dtstinction th Congress drew between gifts
of appreciated operty to foundations, on
one hand, and t colleges, universities and
other publicly sup irted charities, on the
other. When large its are involved the
discrimination against he foundations is
very substantial. Both o these complaints
about the law will merit ?ful attention
when Congress gets around ?eviewing its
actual operation.
THOMAS- MASARYK : A SY i BOL TO
THE FIGHT FOR HUMAN GHTS
Mr. PROXMIRE. Many gre states-
men have led their country's str ggle for
freedom from an oppressive for ign rule.
Other men have devoted thei lives to
championing the great moral causes of
our times. Few, however, hay been able
to do both?to be at the sa time a po-
litical leader for indepen ence and a
leader for human rights.
Thomas Masaryk, ti Czech patriot
and founder of the C ch Republic, was
one of these except al men. A scholar
of philosophy and) ciology, he was the
unchallenged leader of his country's
drive for inclepenudence. Throughout
his long years of dedication to the lib-
eration of Czechoslovakia from the cruel
yoke of Austrian rule, he never lost sight
of the humanistic goals to which he had
ascribed in his early university days. This
is evidenced in his own words by his
burning desire to "devote himself to a
crusade of moral education among the
Czechoslovak people." His dedication to
this lofty principle, when combined with
an exceptional ability for political prag-
matism and statesmanship, led to a life
of unparalleled service to his country.
It is particularly fitting now, since last
Saturday marked the 120th anniversary
of his birth, to pay tribute to Thomas
Garrigue Masaryk, who is a great symbol
to those of us involved in the fight for
Senate ratification of the Human Rights
Conventions.
Thomas Masaryk was born in 1850 in
Hodonin, a small village in a section of
Czechoslovakia then under the domina-
tion of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
After acquiring an extensive academic
background in the humanities, he be-
came in 1879 a lecturer in philosophy at
the University of Vienna. However, his
concern for the plight of his country-
men and his anger at their oppression
by a foreign power drove him from Vi-
enna to Prague, where he took the Post
of professor of philosophy and sociology
at the University of Prague.
In 1899 he became the editor of Time,
a political weekly devoted to discussion
of the burning issues of the day, includ-
ing Czech political freedom and human
rights. His desire to advance the cause of
his enslaved people led him to run for
Parliament as a reform candidate. After
2 years of service in the legislature, he
became convinced that the most- effec-
tive means of achieving his goals was his
work at the University of Prague. How-
ever, in 1900 his friends founded a polit-
ical party, and in 1907 Masaryk was
elected to Parliament as a candidate of
the Realist Party. His return to the legis-
lature was marked by a continuation of
his scathing criticism of the govern-
ment's internal policies and treatment of
the Czech people.
When World War I broke out in 1914,
Masaryk traveled abroad to elicit sup-
port for Czech independence. In 1915 he
inaugurated the movement for inde-
pendence, and in the following year was
a founder of the Czechoslovak National
Council. Masaryk's tireless dipldmatic
efforts on behalf of his country were re-
warded in 1918, when France, Britain,
and the United States recognized the Na-
tional Council as the legitimate repre-
sentative of Czechoslovakia. Independ-
ence was proclaimed on October 28, 1918,
and Masaryk became the first President
of the Republic. For 17 years as Presi-
dent he devoted himself to building a
strong and viable government and so-
ciety.
The tragic events that have occured in
Czechoslovakia since then?from the
German invasion in 1933 to the Russian
destruction of liberalism and humanism
In 1968--underscore the crucial need for
the continuing protection of these basic
human rights, not only for the people of
Czechoslovakia but for all mankind. It is
only fitting, then, that we pay tribute to
Thomas Masaryk, not only for his un-
equaled role in establishing freedom and
indeptndence for Czechoslovakia, but for
his tireless efforts in furthering human
rights in his country and throughout
Europe. We would do well to remember
his words in our efforts to secure Senate
ratification of the Human Rights Con-
ventions:
Approved For Release 2002/03/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300040014-7