AMERICA'S CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090054-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 54
• Publication Date: February 27, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

February- 97, 19$i iproved F~sPAigAWJWg1/,WiIi2BPtWdb?38RO00300090054-7 H 1769
vital items across Red China. One reason, struetion of new plants.
according to intelligence sources: The
Chinese insist on opening all shipments
crossing their territory, often stamp, "Froi,,. RIC
A'S CLEAR AND
China With Love", over the Russian char- DANGER
acters.
Reports are heard, also, that the Chinese
have delayed shipments of SAM's and late-
model MIG's while their technicians removed
them from the crates to make copies for
themselves.
Soviet prudence? It is agreed here in
Saigon that the Russians have not gone as
far as they could in arming North Vietnam.
"In fact," says one U.S. official, "the Russians
have been extremely prudent in some ways.
We think it very likely that Hanoi has asked
for such items as battlefield missiles for use
in the South, perhaps even for submarines
to use against the Seventh Fleet in the
Tonkin Gulf."
Another senior officer adds:
"It is clear what the Russians are up to.
They want to keep us tied up in knots out
here. So far they have refused Hanoi the
weapons to wage a bloody campaign against
U.S. forces in the South, but is that to be
permanent? The Soviets want Hanoi to win,
and they are playing a very clever and cagey
game."
Top analysts insist that Russia's basic
strategy for conquest in the world has not
changed; to weaken the U.S. position
wherever it can in the world, while the
Soviets seek to strengthen their own.
Russia is viewed as supporting a "war of
national liberation" in Vietnam in precisely
the way foretold by their top strategists.
Despite an impression fostered in Wash-
ington that the Russians really want peace in
Vietnam, analysts here. find the evidence in
the other direction. "The Soviet Union,"
reports one official, "has done nothing pub-
licly or privately to help start negotiations.
We don't buy the Moscow line that they
have no influence in Hanoi."
In view of the Russian record in Vietnam,
fighting men here are puzzled at what seems
to be efforts by U.S. to make one accommo-
dation after another with the Soviets-space
treaties, airline pacts, efforts to set up more
consulates in both countries, attempts to
expand East-West trade while war goes on.
In Washington, Senator Karl E. Mundt
(Rep.), of South Dakota, said on January
18 he was appalled at the number of key
U.S. items already being traded behind the
Iron Curtain. He said: "We're doing this in
the face of the fact that every sophisticated
weapon being used to kill our boys in Viet-
nam is furnished by Russia. The deaths of
many of them could be marked: `Made in
Moscow.' "
Soviet military aid to north Vietnam
Millions
1955-64 (Soviet figures) --------------
$35
1965
(Soviet figures) -----------------
550
1966
(estimated) --------------------
700
1967
(Soviet promise) ---------------
800
VITAL WAR SUPPLIES-EVERYTHING FROM OIL
TO MODERN JETS
Supplied by Russia in past 18 months
SAM surface-to-air missiles, antiaircraft
batteries, 75 to 100 MIG warplanes, coastal
ships, IL-28 light bombers, field-artillery
pieces, helicopters, advanced radar defense
system, heavy-construction equipment,
bridge-building materials, military trucks,
rolled-steel products, fertilizer, pyrites,
drugs, surgical instruments, 300,000 metric
tons of oil, cargo transports, heavy infantry
weapons.
In addition, Soviets are training hundreds
of North Vietnamese pilots in Soviet Union,
have sent about 2,000 Russian technicians
into North Vietnam to train and help SAM
missile crews. Soviet experts help run North
Vietnam's mining, power, engineering and
technical industries, serve at the port of
(Mr. ASHBROOK (at the request of
Mr. GUDE) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, the
March 1967 edition of Reader's Digest
carries a provocative and sobering inter-
view with Nathan F. Twining the retired
Air Force general who served as chair-
man of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff from
1957 to 1960. Asked about the present
state of U.S. defenses, General Twining
stated:
During the past few years our ability to
deter an enemy attack has been severely
eroded. I am convinced that if the present
trend is not reversed, and fast, the United
States will soon find itself in very serious
danger.
It will be remembered that the United
States and the U.S.S.R. agreed to a
moratorium on nuclear testing in 1958,
at which time it was stated that little
progress was to be expected by further
development of nuclear explosives and
that the field of missile defense was des-
ignated as particularly barren. In 1961
the Soviets broke the moratorium and
conducted high-yield tests which placed
them well beyond us in the area of very-
high-yield technology. Not too long
thereafter the United States signed the
test ban treaty which substantially froze
our technology in the very-high-yield
area.
In the field of missile defense, the situ-
ation is equally alarming. Attempts were
made in 1963 to allot money for initial
planning on an antiballistic missile de-
fense system. Such attempts were de-
feated and to this day we are still debat-
ing the advisability of proceeding with
the program. Meanwhile, it is now com-
mon knowledge that the Soviets are
ahead of us in this area and have such
a system, although to a limited degree.
After getting burnt on the 1958 mora-
torium, the United States signed the test
ban treaty, thereby freezing the very-
high-yield technological gap in favor of
the Soviets. Now, with the Soviets ahead
in the antiballistic missile defense area,
we are talking of signing another pact
with Russia to limit the antiballistic mis-
sile defenses. The words of General
Twining are worth remembering in this
respect:
If we keep trying to appease the Soviets
with foolish offers and concessions, and keep
reducing our military capabilities toward
their level, and also keep tying our military
technology into unrealistic cost-effectiveness
straitjackets, I believe we can look forward
to a major crisis.
It is ironic that those who favor mak-
ing concessions of various types to the
Soviets' claim to be insuring peace and
lessening tensions, when ;just the oppo-
site is true. The more we place ourselves
at a disadvantage by our agreements
with the Soviets, the more we increase
the chances of war. For it must be re-
membered that the same forces that shed
blood in Budapest, Hungary in 1956, in
Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania and in
other European nations, is the same
enemy that we are dickering with today.
There is one major difference: It will
not be quite so simple from now on to
just shake our heads when another na-
tion is smothered by the Soviets; it will
not be so easy to let the passage of time
wipe out the injustice done to free and
innocent peoples. For destructive Soviet
ICBM's have a U.S.S.R.-to-United States
itinerary and the people of the United
States are now directly involved. Advice
such as that of the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Earle Wheeler,
should be heeded now. An antiballistic
missile system must be started now and
in dead earnest. The objection of
some-Secretary of Defense McNamara
is a prime example--that concentration
on an ABM system would touch off an
expensive arms rate is similar to the case
of D. Jerome Wiesner and the military
parity argument which General Twining
mentions in the following article. Some
Alice-in-Wonderland argument is con-
cocted, U.S. leadership buys it, the Soviet
Union continues on its merry military
way, and the people of the United States
are left holding the bag. It is high time
the American people realize that holding
a high office in Government does not
guarantee infallibility-the mistakes of
high officials in the past easily prove
that. The hard-nosed commonsense, al-
ways a characteristic of our citizens in
the past, must be applied to high-level
decisions, just as it is used in the average
American home.
With permission, I place the article,
`,`America's Clear and Present Danger,"
from the Reader's Digest of March 1967,
in the RECORD at this point:
AMERICA'S CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
(An interview with Nathan F. Twining, Gen-
eral, U.S. Air Force (retired) )
(NOTE. In his current book, "Neither Lib-
erty Nor Safety,"* Gen. Nathan F. Twining,
who served as chairman of the U.S. Joint
Chiefs of Staff from 1957 to 1960, discusses
the alternative courses of cold-war strategy
open to the United States: (1) to disarm the
nation gradually in the hope that communist
countries will follow suit; (2) to maintain
overwhelming military superiority as a de-
terrent to aggression. In an interview with
editors of The Reader's Digest, General Twin-
ing explains why he considers the former
course-the one the United States is now
pursuing-a blueprint for national suicide.)
Q. General Twining, in your book you ex-
press serious misgivings about the present
state of U.S. defenses. What has you so
worried?
A. During the past,. few years our ability
to deter an enemy attack has been severely
eroded. I am convinced that if the present
trend is not reversed, and fast, the United
States will soon find itself in very serious
danger.
Q. Do you mean actual military danger?
A. I do. We have technologically com-
petent enemies who are determined to de-
stroy us. They have been working hard and
steadily to advance their military technol-
ogies; we have not. The Soviet Union pre-
sents the most immediate danger, and clearly
is aiming at across-the-board nuclear su-
premacy. But Red China, too, is rapidly
developing an important nuclear capacity.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090054-7
 H 1770 Approved For R6iiIDIiAE. QdMm060600300090.ptiar7, 1967
Q. Won't our ICBM's. our missile-firing
submarines and our 9ltrategic bombers con-
tinue to be an effective, deterrent?
A. The force that we have today has done
exactly what it was meant to do: it has pro-
vided the United States with overwhelming
military supremacy through the mid-1960's.
But military supremacy is not a permanent
fact of life. To keep it, you-must keep work-
ing at it. If you don't, sooner or later an
ambitious enemy is bound to achieve tech-
nological breakthroughs which will shift the
balance of power in his favor. This, I'm
afraid, is what has been happening.
All the major weapons systems now in our
combat inventory were started in the 1950's.
Since then, we have added nothing signifi-
cant. We have thrown away more than half
a decade of irretrievable lead time in the
development of the advanced weapons sys-
tems we will need to present a convincing
deterrent through the mid-1970's and be-
yond.
At the sarne time, we have been discarding
existing strength. For example, soon after
the 1962 agreement by the U.S.S.R. to with-
draw its medium-range ballistic missiles
from Cuba, to the amazement of our mili-
tary professionals and our allies we suddenly
announced that all our ballistic missiles in
Europe were outmoded and ineffective, and
took them out-from Turkey, Italy, and the
United Kingdom. The truth is that these
weapons were still effective, and by removing
them we greatly simplified both the offen-
sive and the defensive problems for the
Soviets.
Then we canceled plans to produce a mo-
bile medium.-range ballistic missile for NA-
TO Europe, whose vital centers are now
within range of hundreds of Soviet medium-
range ballistic missiles. We -made major re-
ductions In the production of materials for
nuclear weapons. We are now engaged in a
rapid phase-out of our strategic bombard-
ment force.
Q. What have the Russians been doing in
the meantime?
A. Evidence mounts that the Soviets have
been pursuing a vigorous weapons program.
They have developed a high-yield nuclear-
weapons technology, and it seems likely that
they can produce warheads of 100 megatons
and more. In addition, reliable evidence in-
dicates that they are rapidly deploying an
operational anti-ballistic missile system for
the defense of vital target areas. There have
also been reports that they are increasing
substantially the size of their ICBM force.
Q. Do you think that If they achieve
breakthroughs in their military technology
they will attack?
A. We certainly could look forward to some
Interesting nuclear blackmail. I think they
might attack if they were convinced that they
had achieved a clear strategic ascendancy
and could strike with acceptable losses to
themselves.
Q. Why have we not been developing our
own military technology?
A. Two forces have been at work. One is
an anti-nuclear clique of moralists, pacifists
and academic dreamers associated at in-
fluential levels with the State and Defense
departments and the White House. These
people may be sincere, concerned and patri-
otic, but they have never been able to ac-
climate themselves to the nuclear age. They
don't believe that the Soviets mean It when
they tell us that someday they will destroy
us. They insist that our military supremacy
has been "provocative" and largely responsi-
ble for the tensions of the past two decades.
They theorize that if we scale down our
strategic capability to the point where it is
equal to or even a little inferior to Russia's,
the Soviets will stop competing, the arms
race will end and peace will reign.
To my mind, such views are indicative of
an inability, a+r a refusal, to cope with reality.
But the anti-nuclear clique Is vociferous. It
has been a major force in the retardation of
our weapons technology and in the weaken-
ing of our deterrent.
Q. Who are these anti-nuclear people?
A. The leaders are, mainly, scientists who
have been active politically for many years.
They advised President Truman not to de-
velop the hydrogen bomb. In fact, there
might not have been an American H-bomb
if Dr. Edward Teller, a scientist who is in
touch with reality, had not presented con-
vincing evidence that we could develop it,
and that for national security we must build
it. As it turned out, the Soviets -tested their
first H-bomb within it few months of ours;
so it was obvious that they were not guided
by any considerations of what the United
States might or might not do, but had de-
veloped the H-bomb as fast as they could.
There is no telling whether this country
would still exist if Truman had not decided
to proceed with development of this weapon.
Q. Then, In 1958, we joined the Soviets in
a moratorium on nuclear testing?
A. That's :right. At first we had insisted
on a foolproof inspection system--we didn't
mind stopping if we knew that no one else
was testing and developing. But the Soviets
didn't want any sort of inspection. They
wanted us to stop our nuclear-weapons pro-
gram, and to take their word for it that they
had stopped theirs. Communist propaganda
went to work, and our own antinuclear
clicue picked up the cry, giving assurances
that we were so far ahead in nuclear tech-
nology that we would lose little even if the
Soviets did test clandestinely.
Every responsible American rnil:.tary leader
and our more responsible nuclear scientists,
again led by Dr. Teller, opposed a no-inspec-
tiore moratorium. They insisted that it was
a trap, and would end in a double cross.
But they were overruled. Of course, the
Soviets continued secretly, and in 1961 they
ended the "gentlemen's agreement" with a
series of tests of great sophistication, tech-
nological depth and military significance.
We gave them three free years, and they
made the most of them.
Q. Did we then re-establish the develop-
ment capabilities we had when we stopped
testing?
A. No. We should have, but we didn't.
Get.. Curtis LeMay, then chief of staff of
the Air Force, organized a committee of
nuclear and military professionals to study
the military implications of the Soviet tests.
When we finished our study, we went to the
White House to recommend urgently that
the United States get cracking in exploring
the high-yield nuclear-weapons field. But
Dr. Jerome Wiesner, who was chief science
adviser to President Kennedy, and others did
not agree. We were turned down. The
underlying conviction of those who opposed
us, It seemed to me, was that the American
posture ofnuclear supremacy had. to be cut
hack so that ' military parity" with the Soviet
Union might be achieved.
Even after we learned that the Soviets had
macle sensational progress with their nu-
clear-weapons programs, Dr. Hairs Bethe, an-
other influential scientist, said he thought
tha; this contributed to stability and re-
duced Soviet fears of an attack by the United
States. I believe most Americans must find
such reasoning as upside down as I do.
A year after the Soviets completed their
tests, knowing that they had advanced well
beyond us with their very-high-yield tech-
nology, our government signed a formal nu-
clear test-ban treaty with them which sub-
stantially froze our technology where it
stood. Our proposals for on-site Inspections
were turned down.
Q. Why is it so important to test a high-
yield device?
A. Because the Russians have this big
weapon, and we do not know what effect it
might have on our missile systems. We can-
not afford this information gap.
Q Don't we have an underground testing
prof; ram?
A. Yes, but you can't measure under-
ground the exact phenomena which might
develop frnn a detonation in the atmosphere
or in space.
Q Has the United States remained ready
to resume atmospheric testing immediately,
if it should become necessary?
A. It would tai:e a long time-possibly too
lont--to re-establish a comprehensive test-
ing e.nd development program. It is impos-
sible to keep together, against a day which
may or may not come, the kind of scientific
tale:it such a, prcgram requires. People dis-
perses. It is unrealistic to think you can stop
such a program and then start it up again
immediately.
Q. Is the anti-nuclear clique still active in
govt rnmer t?- -
A. Dr. Wiesner recently headed a commit-
tee for President Johnson which suggested a
total ban c n nucl sa:r testing, plus a new con-
cept of flexibility cn the matter of mutual
inspection, and a total halt in the produc-
tion of nt.clear materials for weapons pur-
poses. In other words, the committee seems
to me to say that the United States should
quit ;he nuclear-weapons business altogether
and take i ; on fa: th that the Soviets will do
the same. The plan strikes me as a blue-
print for ;micide.
But I would no'; dare predict that we won't
implement portions of it. In fact, Ambas-
sador Arthur Goldberg has proposed in the
United Nations ti- al; the United States would
retire vast amour.ts of nuclear-weapons ma-
terials if the Soviet Union would retire about
two thirds its my: ch-leaving the Soviets to
do with the remaining third whatever they
wished. This is in incredible proposal.
Q. Does our Arms Control and Disarma-
men' Ager.cy do a sensible job of planning
and negotiating?
A. Many in Congress feel that the 1961 Act
which establishes. the agency exceeded the
original intent of Congress, which was to
provide an arms-eoxtrol research service for
the President. As passed, however, the Act
char;es the agency with preparing for and
managing American participation in inter-
national negotiatiorg-even though it is not
answerable to De:'ense or State, and has no
overall responsib:lty for national security.
Of course, those who staff this agency want
to succeed at what they conceive to be their
primary mission--disarmament. Thus, the
agency is bound to use its influence on such
matters as nuclear testing and development
of mw weapons-and to lean toward the con-
cept of "no inspection" or "minimum inspec-
tion" for t:ae sake cf reaching some form of
agreement with the communist powers.
The military asa,igns knowledgeable officers
as ac.visers to the agency, to try to make sure
that the family jewels are not given away.
Even so, the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency should b-; abolished and its func-
tions returned to the departments of De-
fense and State.
Q. You said that two forces have combined
to retard the de"e]opnient of our military
capa oility. One :s the anti-nuclear clique.
Wha ; is the other'
A. The rigid application of Secretary of
Defe:iso Robert Ii[cNamara's cost-effective-
ness theory to def muse planning. Cost-effec-
tiveness is simply a way of measuring the
most economical any to accomplish a mili-
tary mission. I don't quarrel with the
theory. But it becomes self-defeating when
it is made the dominant factor in defense
planning, almost to the exclusion of other
vital elements of judgment. Most military
professionals believe that this poses a grave
danger to the future security of the nation
because it stifles :?esearch and development.
It is usually impossible to produce In ad-
vance, from the thresholds of new technol-
ogies conclusive proof that a proposed weap-
ons system will accomplish a mission more
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090054-7
 February 97, 198pproved FtDOlR 0D69t(Ia/WCO RDP$ P U38R000300090054-7
a
effectively and more economically than it
could otherwise be done. You must move
off the thresholds, conduct serious explora-
tions in promising fields, give some leeway to
disciplined imagination. If McNamara's
policies had been in effect during the 1950's
we would not have the ballistic-missile force
we have today.
Q. Don't the senior military officers speak
freely to Congress on such matters?
A. No. The Defense Department monitors
everything they say, and the officer who talks
out of turn may expect some kind 'of reprisal.
I believe strongly in civilian control of the
military. But I don't believe that the mili-
tary posture of the United States is the
private business of an autocratic civilian au-
thority, such as the Defense Department has
become. When the elected representatives
of the people seek professional military judg-
ments, I believe that they are entitled to
straightforward answers, and that such an-
swers should be given without fear of re-
prisal. As the situation now stands, the
civilian managers of Defense have effectively
silenced the military, and are tightly man-
aging the news that reaches the people.
Q. For a country that isn't doing much to
advance its military technology, isn't our de-
fense budget inordinately high?
A. Yes-but primarily because of the war
in Vietnam. Any war is extremely expen-
sive-which is another excellent reason for
staying militarily strong enough to keep
wars from happening.
Q. What must we do?
assign priorities?
reducing our military capabilities toward
their level, and also keep tying our military
technology into unrealistic cost-effectiveness
straitjackets, I believe we can look forward to
a major crisis. Such a crisis will be far more
serious than any we have been through be-
fore-certainly more serious than the Cuban,
missile crisis. Next time, an enemy who no
longer can see such a clear strategic superior-
ity on our side may not be inclined to back off
so quickly. There would be grave danger of
miscalculation. There could be war. I be-
lieve that such a crisis is coming. I also be-
lieve that such a crisis need not come. But if
we are to prevent it, we have no time to lose.
The hour is late, and the enemy is watching
the clock.
TAX INCENTIVE WOULD HELP MIN-
NESOTA FIGHT AIR, WATER POL-
LUTION
(Mr. NELSEN (at the request of Mr.
GUDE) was granted permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, there is
little question that air and water pollu-
tion problems are mounting in Minnesota
as well as in other States. The Gover-
nor's Committee on Air :Resources, re-
porting on Minnesota air pollution in
1966, labeled air pollution "a problem of
statewide concern." The committee re-
ported that at least 356 towns and cities
in Minnesota, not including Minneapolis
or St. Paul, had one or more sources of
air pollution. The committee warned-
The State can expect to encounter more
air pollution as it continues to grow in popu-
lation, productivity and urbanization.
With respect to water pollution, in
spite of encouraging efforts, sewage and
industrial wastes continue to contami-
nate the State's waterways. As an ex-
ample, of a total 849 municipalities in
the State on January 1, :1967, some 366
were without sewer systems and another
32 were without any treatment plant, ac-
cording to the Minnesota Department of
Health. Some 64 additional municipal-
ities have been found by the Minnesota
Water Pollution Control Commission to
have inadequate treatment plants.
And it should be pointed out that these
figures do not indicate the extent of
damage to plant and animal life through
air and water pollutants associated with
industrial plants.
Damage from all kinds of pollution is
considerable. While figures on Minne-
sota exclusively are difficult to come by,
it has been estimated that the economic
loss to the average individual as a con-
sequence of air pollution alone amounts
to at least $65 per capita per year, or a
total of over $12 billion per year in the
United States. The Governor's Commit-
tee study in our State last year pointed
out-
If the per capita loss in Minnesota were
only one-third the national average, or $22,
the annual cost in the State could come to
something like $82.5 million.
Nor should it be assumed that such
damage is confined largely to industrial
areas. The 1962 National Conference on
Air Pollution, for example, estimated
that the national agricultural losses re-
sulting from presently recognized air
pollutants already amount to hundreds
H 1771
of millions of dollars a year. In a State
such as Minnesota, concentrations toxic
for certain crops may be found as far
away as 100 miles from the sources of
pollution, according to the Governor's
committee.
The problems of air and water pollu-
tion, while mounting, are being increas-
ingly recognized by an informed public.
A recent Minnesota poll, conducted by
the Minneapolis Tribune, reported Feb-
ruary 12:
More than three out of four Minnesotans
(76 per cent) think pollution of the state's
rivers and lakes is a serious problem.
I request inclusion of the entire poll
report at this point in my remarks.
SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT: WATER POLLUTION IS
SERIOUS PROBLEM
More than three out of four Minnesotans
(76 per cent) think pollution of the state's
rivers and lakes is a serious problem, accord-
ing to a statewide survey by the Minneapolis
Tribune's Minnesota Poll.
"Water pollution is caused primarily by
manufacturers who dump waste materials
into the rivers and lakes," said a St. Paul
sales manager.
Fifty-three per cent of the state residents
interviewed said that business and industry
is mainly responsible for the water pollution
problem.
President Johnson has asked Congress to
appropriate $306 million to fight water pol-
lution, including nearly $4 million for proj-
ects in Minnesota.
Six hundred adults from all parts of the
A. The Defense Department is making our
strategic posture a Maginot Line of missiles.
If we fail to reverse this trend quickly, the
President in some future crisis is going to
find himself in a dangerous, inflexible mili-
tary position. An all-missile strategic force
will not give him much choice in the re-
sponse we can make, since missiles cannot
be used for anything short of general nuclear
war.
To ensure operational flexibility, we need a
mixed force. We need a new manned
bomber, one with great range and speed, and
the ability to penetrate existing and pro-
jected air defenses. Such a bomber, called
AMSA (Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft) ,
has already been through the preliminary de-
sign stages. It can be built.
Q. What has been holding it up?
A. The Defense Department argues that
the need for AMSA is not clear. The mili-
tary and Congress disagree. Congress keeps
appropriating funds and authorizing the De-
fense Department to proceed. But Defense
keeps saying year after year that it is "study-
ing the matter." Millions for study, noth-
ing for hardware.
Q. What else should we be doing?
A. I am deeply concerned at the lack of
attention the United States has paid to the
really awesome military potential of space.
We have done no significant work in develop-
ing offensive and defensive apace-weapons
systems. Yet the Soviets are on record as
recognizing and planning for the military
utilization of space; in fact, in the past year
they have paraded a weapon that they call
an orbital bomb. We have been governed in
our approach to space by the same absurd
and dangerous logic that thwarted develop-
ment of our nuclear technology. Now, a
treaty banning weapons of mass destruction
from outer space has been worked up, and
high officials of our government are hailing
it as a great step toward peace. I'm sure
that the Soviets will respect this treaty just
as they respect all the agreements they enter
into-until it suits their purposes to break it.
Q. In the past, it has taken war or the
threat of war to snap America out of peace-
time weapons development lethargy. Do you
think it will happen this way again?
A. If we keep trying to appease the Soviets
with foolish offers and concessions, and keep
state were asked:
"Do you think pollution
rivers and lakes is or is not
lem?"
The replies:
of Minnesota's
a serious prob-
All adults: Percent
Is serious problem------------------ 76
Is not------------------------------- 15
Other and no opinion--------------- 9
Men:
Is serious problem------------------
Is not-------------------------------
Other and no opinion---------------
Women:
Is serious problem-------------------
Is not -------------------------------
Other and no opinion ----------------
Grade school:
is serious problem----.------------.---
Is not ------------------------------
Other and no opinion-------------.---
High school:
Is serious problem-------------------
Is not-------------------------------
Other and no opinion -----------..---
College :
Is serious problem----------------?---
Is not-------------------------------
Other and no opinion ----------------
About one out of four people (23 per
cent) agree with the Rochester housewife
who said, "The carelessness of the public is
responsible for pollution-refuse is strewn
along the beaches and banks of lakes and
rivers."
"Too many communities simply do not
have adequate purification systems."
That comment from a St. Louis Park engi-
neer is typical of the responses received from
16 per cent of the public who blame pollu-
tion on cities and towns.
"People living along lakes and rivers com-
pletely disregard sanitation by dumping un-
treated waste materials into the water," said
a 39-year-old St. Paul man.
The question asked was:
"Who or what do you think is mainly re-
sponsible for water pollution."
The explanation of all respondents:
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090054-7
 111772
Approved For RelgMa3 g ALCI fi F]BB00 RP03000900"-ffrttz ~27} 1967
Percent
Manufacturers, factories, industry-----
53
The public, tourists, sportsmen---------
23
Cities, towns--------------------------
16
Sewage, drainage from ditches----------
14
Farmers, fertilizers, insecticides--------
4
Motorboats, ships---------------------
4
Detergents, soaps---------------------
3
Other causes--------------------------
6
No opinion---------------------------
16
T0t;11 --------------------------
139
The above table totals more than
100
per cent because some people supplied more
than one reason for pollution.
Interviews were conducted with a balanced
cross-section of adults in early January.
D. C. Townsend, editor and publisher
of the Belle Plaine Herald in the Second
Congressional District, is among many
editors in my congressional district who
have expressed themselves on the sub-
ject of increased pollution. I ask that
a recent editorial by Mr. Townsend be
made a part of the RECORD at this point
in my remarks.
In the increasing discussion on water pol-
lution, particularly of the rivers in or near
the Twin Cities-The Mississippi, Minnesota
and St. Croix-special mention has been
made of the condition of the lower Minne-
sota river. During the past six to ten years,
practically every town in the lower Minne-
sota from Mankato to the mouth of the
river financed disposal plants, and that
should have greatly reduced the pollution
factor. However, the more than twenty
miles from Shakopee to the mouth of the
river, serving the extensive industrial area
on the south? and the vast residential area
of Bloomington on the north, creates the
charge of bad pollution in the lower Min-
nesota river. The afflicted areas know it,
but are reluctant to spend their own money
in correcting the situation as did the towns
and industrial pants on our portion of the
river.
From such evidence, Mr. Speaker, it
is apparent Congress should leave no
stones unturned in doing what is sound,
reasonable, and in the public interest
in controlling pollution.
I am therefore today introducing legis-
lation to amend the Internal Revenue
Code to liberalize the tax treatment ac-
corded facilities for water and air pol-
lution abatement. Initially sponsored
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
BROWN], and a great many other Re-
publicans in the House, it would en-
courage industry to act promptly in
building antipollution facilities by giv-
ing a 20-percent tax credit for such in-
vestments. The facilities could be ex-
pensed as they are built or over a period
up to 5 years. Certifying agency for the
tax benefit facility would be local author-
ity in compliance with Federal
regulation.
This tai: incentive would apply to all
costs of pollution abatement work, in-
cluding buildings, improvements, ma-
chinery, equipment and land costs. The
project would require approval from the
appropriate State authorities, however,
in order to qualify.
Mr. Speaker, from the research I have
done, it appears at least 148 Minnesota
businesses could have been stirred to
faster antipollution efforts in the last
2 years alone if liberalized tax treatment
had been available as an incentive. My
estimate is based on a report issued
earlier this year by the Minnesota Water
Pollution Control Commission, which in-
dicated at least 148 businesses and
corporations had initiated some action to
check pollution.
Such businesses would be stimulated
to more rapid development of waste con-
trol projects if they were assured that
such sizable investments undertaken not
for profit, but to protect the public in-
terest, could be partially written off
through a tax credit.
For such important reasons, I hope
the tax incentive legislation so many of
us have introduced will receive early and
favorable consideration.
BILL INTRODUCED TO ALLOW MINT
MARKS
(Mr. CLEVELAND (at the request of
Mr. GuDE) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I
have today introduced a bill which would
repeal the prohibition of mint marks on
U.S. coinage.
Since the establishment of our coinage
system, these marks have been an im-
portant part of it, identifying the mint
from which our coins were issued. Thus
an important part of our historic herit-
age is preserved in the "CC" mint marks
on coinage from the old Carson City,
Nev., Mint; it is long since closed., but the
"CC" mark remains as a collector's item
and a reminder of the prosperous and
thriving mint which once existed as our
Nation's borders pushed westward.
Mint marks were deleted from our
coinage with the enactment of the Coin-
age Act of 1965. This was an emergency
measure, attributed to the critical short-
age of coins in circulation at that time.
It was felt that coins with no ::Hint marks
would be less valuable to collectors, and
especially speculators, and would be more
likely to stay in circulation where they
were desperately needed.
Now, M:r. Speaker, Treasury Depart-
ment and Bureau of the Mint officials
acknowledge that the coin shortages of
1564 and 1965 have ended; that sufficient
coinage is now in circulation to satisfy
our Nation's commercial :needs. With
the end of this shortage, I feel the his-
torically significant mint marks should
be restored to our coinage.
Late in the second session Df the 89th
Congress, a bill was introduced by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ANNUNZIO]
to do this. It had the support of liter-
ality millions of numismatists, who,
incidentally, comprise one of the fastest-
growing hobby groups in the Nation.
Neither the Bureau of the Mint nor the
Treasury Department expressed any op-
position to the bill. But, unfortunately,
it was lost in the rush for ad:ournment,
as business more vital to the Nation's
welfare had to be considered.
:Vow, as we start, a new congress, I
hope this bill will be given thoughtful
consideration and eventual passage. Its
adoption would end emergency regula-
tions where it has clearly been shown
the emergency no longer exists.
NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY PATROL
WEEK
:Mr. CUNN]:NGHAM (at the request of
Mr. Gum) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on
the first day of this session, I intro-
duced House Joint Resolution 39 which
would provide for the designation of the
second week of each May as "National
School Safety Patrol Weer."
I introduced a similar measure last
year.
The sight of a young man or young
woman with hie arms outstretched and
a :;afety patrol belt on is a familiar sight
to all the Members of this body, I am
certain. They should be. There are
over 900,000 patrol members in the
United States. They serve 40,000 schools
in 15,000 communities.
In addition there are some 156,000
patrol members serving in 20 foreign
co'.:,ntries.
:.)lore than :.6 million have served on
safety patrols since their establishment
in 1.922.
When one considers these schoolchil-
dren, who must be from the upper ele-
mentary or junior high school grades,
protect some l9 million schoolchildren,
it s easy to see the tremendous job they
are doing.
l'ome may ask, "What good are these
patrols?' The answer can best be given
by citing the fact that since 1922, the
year the patrols were first instituted, the
traffic death rate school-age children has
dropped nearly one-half, while the death
rate of all other age groups has doubled.
Each year, the American Automobile
Association join; with the schools and
police in sponsoring the National School
Safety Patrol Parade here in Wash-
tort, D.C. More than 22,000 boys and
girls from 20 or more States annually
participate in this colorful event.
1 am happy that this year there will be
a contingent of 12 youngsters from
Omaha, Nebr., participating in the pa-
rac'e down Cor.st:itution Avenue on May
13. William S Mitchell will be in charge
of the group, which is being sponsored
by the Cornhuske:r Motor Club in Omaha.
In connection with the parade, the
American Automobile Association each
year presents Gold Lifesaver Medals to
thce>e young patrol heroes who have ac-
tually saved the life of a schoolmate in
traffic danger. Among those who have
made the presentations in the past are:
Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhow-
er, and Truman: Vice Presidents Hum-
PHE.zY and Nh:o:n; and Attorney Gen-
eral ROBERT F. KENNEDY.
I would like to take this opportunity
to invite my colleagues to join with me
in a aonsoring this legislation, which will
call national attention to the wonder-
ful work being acne by these youngsters,
anci I include :.n my remarks some re-
ma.:rk:s from the "School Safety Patrol
Member's Handbook":
A good school safety patrolman is always
on ;he job. Marie your school and school-
mates proud of the way you appear and the
way ;you act on the street.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090054-7