COPY OF SECOND LETTER TO PRESIDENT REQUESTING INTENTIONS AS TO ESTABLISHING PROMISED TEST BAN SAFEGUARDS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200008-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 1, 2004
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: October 23, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN

A6604
Approved ease 2006/11/09: C;IA-R DP65B00383R000100200008-2
pp,
f~CONGR:ESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX October 603
Copy of Second Letter to President Re- following treaty safeguards expenditures dur- Is Medical Experimentation Cruel to
ing the
balance of fiscal year 1964:
questing Intentions as to Establishing Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Animals?
Promised Test Ban Safeguards New Mexico: --'
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CRAIG HOSMER
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 23, 1963
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, below is
reproduced my second letter to President
Kennedy relative to the vital matter of
establishing the safeguards promised by
him to diminish the admitted risks and
disadvantages of the test ban treaty. For
reference, my first letter to him on this
subject was reproduced in the RECORD
for September 30 at page A6115:
OCTOBER 18, 1963.
Re reductions of risks and disadvantages of
the limited test ban treaty.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: My letter to you dated
September 24, 1989, concerning the above-
captioned matter has just been answered by
Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Dr.
Glenn Seaborg, under date of October 17,
1963.
Dr. Seaborg's letter states your administra-
tion is seeking authorization to make the
High temperature chemistry fa-
cility---------- ----------
Plutonium research support
building--------- _
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,
Livermore, Calif.:
Radiochemistry building------
Hazards control addltfon______
Plant engineering atld services
building--------- ----------
West cafeteria addition-------
Craft shop addition___________
Sandia Base, N. Mex.:. I
Development laboratory-------
Explosive facilities-- --__--___
Classified technical reports
building (addition) ---------
Nevada Test Site: Coritrol point
additions_____________________
5, 900, 000
1, 000,000
1,400,000
256, 000
200,000
3, 780, 000
540,000
HON. LAURENCE J. BURTON
OF UTAH
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 23, 196.3
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I am
sure my colleagues in the House, li'_:e me,
have received much mail on the subject
of inhumane treatment of animals dur-
ing experimentation for medical research
purposes. I :received a very throughtful
article that was written by one of my
constituents on this subject and submit
it for the possible interest of my col-
leagues.
AmoRY Is NEEDLESSLY ClaimL TO SCIENCE
(By Bonnie Brian Seliger)
After reading Cleveland Amory's article
Total--------------------- 17,945,000
Dr, Seaborg's letter also indicates that a
request for appropriation of $5,945,000 will
be made and that the remaining $12 million
of the total sum of $17,945,000 will be ob-
tained by reallocating money already appro-
priated for other purposes.
For the purposes off' comparison, I have
prepared the following table setting out the
sums I have estimated are necessary to estab-
lish the treaty safeguards you have prom-
ised and sums you requested on October 16:
Action required by promised safeguards
Cost estimatd
in Sept. 24,
1963,letter'
to you
Your Oct. 16,
1963, request
Percent
Underground test site improvement and additions-----------------------
weapons Laboratory improvements and retention of topfl fight ecientists_,
Readiness for atmospheric tests resumption capability -------------------
Detection system improvements and miscellaneous____________________
$100,000 , 01)0
160, 000, OQO
610,000,0p1)Q0p
130,ON,0o
$630, 000
17$3 000
_
_
0.68
10.82
Total ------------------------------------------------------ --------
_ 1,000,000,000
17,945,000
1.79
This table indicates a serious discrepancy
between your views and mine as to the ac-
tions required to implement the safeguards,
their costs and as to the permissible delay in
implementing them. This discrepancy is
further enlarged by my estimate that, in ad-
dition to the original investment, at least
one-quarter billion dollars must be spent
annually to maintain the safeguards in
operational efficiency.
Inasmuch as statements by yourself and
members of your administration raise no
question as to the necessity for establishing
the safeguards, the difference between my
views and yours seem to lie in the following
areas:
1. What actions are necessary to estab-
lish the safeguards?
2. How urgent is it to establish them with-
out delay?
3. How much will they cost?
These are very grave questions concern-
ing which- I believe the American people are
entitled to know your views in detail. I feel
they also are entitled to reassurance that
the $12 million reallocation above mentioned
is not from items essential to the national
security.
Dr. Seaborg's letter, I presume, indicated
only a part of what you may have in mind
relative to investments at the laboratories
and for underground test site facilities. It
was wholly silent as to what you may have in
mind respecting the creation and mainte-
nance of readiness fot prompt resumption
of atmospheric testing hinder emergency con-
ditions. It also was wholly silent as to what
you may have in mind respecting the im-
provement of our capability to detect pos-
sible violations of the preaty and to monitor
Sovietnuclear weapons improvements.
1: sincerely hope you will avail yourself of
an opportunity to reveal to the Nation your
thinking on these important matters, either
in a comprehensive reply to this letter or
otherwise.
I make this request because the amount
you are presently seing for implementa-
tion of the safeguards is such a am ill frac-
tion of what many believe is needed. that it
raises doubts that the entire matter of the
safeguards are being taken seriously by those
who may be advising you in these matters.
I make this request also because there is
no assurance that Soviet scientists have not
already embarked on a clandestine program
of secret developments aimed at overpower-
ing U.S. capability in every category of nu-
clear weapons; there can be no assurance on
this point until the promised safeguards are
fully in being; and, until they are, an open
invitation to the Kremlin is outstanding to
get away with anything and everything we
cannot detect or discover.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG HOSMER,
Member of Congress.
"Science is Needlessly Cruel to Animals" I
would like the opportunity to discuss this
situation from a different point of view.
In the beginning, I would Like to say that
I feel sure that the type of inhumane treat-
ment of animals reported by Mr. Amory does
happen. However, I would like to ask, to
whatpercentage of the animals involved and
by what percentage of the mien and women
involved? To say "science is :needlessly cruel
to animals" is a sweeping statement and to
suggest Federal control seems a drastic solu-
tion. The picture must be viewed in its
entirety to give it proper perspective. The
incidence of sadistic activity in the science
labs involves such a small percentage of the
the science research program that is does
not warrant this move for congressional
action.
By accumulating the facts of a few obscure
and unhappy incidents and printing them
in the front of the Post, Mr. Amory and the
editors of the Post have blotted from the
view of the public, the thousands of dedi-
cated men and women who give their lives
to the search for new knowledge.
The same day Mr. Amory's article appeared
in the Post, our local newspaper carried the
story of parents who had beaten their 6-year-
old child to death for wetting the bed.
Stories of such happenings are printed al-
most daily. Does this mean parents are
needlessly cruel to children and that the
Government should be brought in to con-
trol the discipline of children? Everyone
assumes, and rightly so, that the vast ma-
jority of parents have enough humanity and
judgement, to discipline their own children
without outside interference. When, a case
of gross mistreatment or unkindness is found
it is corrected and the guilty persons p1m-
ished according to the local laws. So it
should be with scientists,.
My husband is doing research under a
Government grant at this time. I am not
at all inclined toward this type of work and
much prefer to use animals just for the
enjoyment a pet gives me personally, but
I have seen for myself many times and in
several schools, the way all kinds of research
animals are treated. Their fate does not
bother me, a pet lover, in the least. I have
answered many strange questions people
have asked me about animal research so I
would like to answer some of them here.
I can't begin to count the number of tinges
someone has asked me if they put the ani-
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: C,IA-R DP65B00383R000100200008-2