SOVIET OIL OFFENSIVE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP64B00346R000100220082-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 21, 2004
• Sequence Number: 82
• Publication Date: January 1, 1962
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/06/24: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100220082-1
1 962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
States by telling a story about a young of the Interior to make a factual study
boy who was coming up an escalator the of the effects on the free world of the
wrong way. According to Lord Home, he exports of oil from the Soviet bloc. A
told the boy, "You cannot do that," to working committee, headed by George T.
which the boy replied, "But I am an Piercy, of Standard Oil, and Robert Ebel,
American." Lord Home then told his of the Department of the Interior, has
audience, saying he drew no moral, "I produced a voluminous, well-documented
turned him round and I put him back on report which can only be described as
I am afraid it is the British, who in my
judgment, have been traveling the wrong
road. We would be in serious trouble, in-
deed, if we followed the suggestions of
Lord Home about the proper road to
travel.
I was incensed when I read this report
of Lord Home's speech. I am still angry
about it. But I want to make on thing
clear. As one who fought in two World
Wars side by side with British men and
officers, I know there are no more coura-
geous, determined, or resourceful fighters
than the British. And if I had to choose
anyone with whom to stand -with my
back against the wall in a last-ditch
struggle for survival, I would not hesitate
to make that stand with a Britisher.
When the chips are down, they are al-
ways superb.
But my point is this, Mr. President, the
American people would prefer to meet
and defeat communism without first
placing our backs to the wall and throw-
ing our chips to the ground. There is no
reason why at this point we should con-
tinue to negotiate ourselves into a dead-
end alley where the only alternative is
complete surrender or all-out war.
There are many other courses we can
take today with regard to Cuba, Asia,
trade with the Communists, Berlin, and
other points of conflict with the Com-
munists which will strengthen our hand
and, in my judgment, make all-out con-
flict less, not more, likely. But such a
policy demands more than mere nego-
tiation and wishful thinking. It requires
allied cooperation, and even economic
sacrifice.
Mr. President, we are not playing tid-
dlywinks with the Communists. We are
involved in a serious and dangerous cold
war struggle. We cannot afford to lose,
and the kind of hestitation, gentleman's
agreement, and timid diplomacy which
played such a large part in bringing on
World War II is even more out of date
today than it was a quarter of a century
ago. In facing the Communists, we must
fight fire with fire and give up the dan-
gerous habit of confusing the form and
appearance of international agreement
with the real substance of international
security which we have so far been unable
to ae ieve through diplomatic method.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, the
severity of the threat posed to the secu-
rity of this country by the Soviet oil of-
fensive was graphically emphasized this
week with the release of a report by
the National Petroleum Council. This
group is an advisory body to the Federal
Government, and its membership in-
cludes 80 men who are leaders in the
field of petroleum production, transport,
and sale. Eighteen months ago, the
council was asked by the Department
startling.
The committee found that the Soviet
Union is the repository of vast untapped
oil reserves, and that crude oil produc-
tion is increasing rapidly and far ex-
ceeding all official Soviet plans. Fur-
thermore, the Russians are stepping up
their ability to export petroleum by
building a major pipeline system which
they would not have been able to com-
plete thus far without obtaining mate-
rials from the free world. West Ger-
many, Italy, and Sweden alone will sup-
ply 40 percent of the entire requirements
of the Soviet 7-year plan for 40-inch
pipeline.
Our allies are also cooperating in this
expansion by building Russian deep sea
oil tankers in Western countries. The
Soviet tanker fleet will be practically
self-sufficient by 1965, and two-thirds of
the new tonnage will have been sup-
plied by the free world. It is indeed
surprising that the Russians seem to
be surpassing even their own production
estimates in this field, and distressing
that the nations of the free world have
formulated no coordinated plan to meet
the offensive.
Soviet bloc exports to Western Europe
have grown, and in the estimation of the
committee which has just produced this
important report, Soviet bloc exports
will continue to grow. This politically
motivated trade offensive has three seri-
ous consequences: .
First. It reduces the revenues of the
oil producing nations of the West.
Second. It enables the Communists to
obtain strategic goods and technology in
return for oil, from the industrialized
nations.
Third. It enables the Soviets to exert
political pressure on underdeveloped
countries which become dependent upon
receiving Soviet oil.
In recent months, I have spoken out
many times in an effort to alert the
country to this very real danger. It Is
gratifying that this long-awaited report
was finally released, and I commend the
National Petroleum Council, and the
members of the committee for their ex-
cellent presentation. Perhaps this re-
port will serve to awaken the public and
government officials to the harsh facts.
On October 26, the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee will meet in New
York to hear testimony relating to trade
with the Soviet bloc. It is my hope that
the witnesses at the hearing will be able
to give us additional information on this
oil problem in particular. With this ob-
jective in mind, the subcommittee staff
is preparing to receive testimony from
some of the men who compiled this ex-
cellent report.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
22171
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate stand in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 1
o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.) the Senate
took a recess, subject to the call of the
Chair. At 2 o'clock p.m., the Senate re-
assembled, when called to order by Hon.
LEE METCALF, a Senator from the State
of Montana.
DESIGNATION OF ACTING PRESI-
DENT PRO TEMPORE
The legislative clerk read the following
letter:
U.S. SENATE,
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,
Washington, D.C., October 13, 1962.
To the Senate:
Being temporarily absent from the Senate,
I appoint Hon. LEE METCALF, a Senatorfrom
the State of Montana, to perform the duties
of the Chair during my absence.
CARL HAYDEN,
President pro tempore.
Mr. METCALF thereupon took the
chair as Acting President pro tempore.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 12900) making appropriations for
certain civil functions administered by
the Department of Defense, certain
agencies of the Department of the In-
terior, the Atomic Energy Commission,
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corpo:ration, the Tennessee Valley Au-
thority, and certain river basin commis-
sions, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1963; that the House receded from
its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 4, 13, and 18 to the
bill and concurred therein, and that the
House receded from its disagreement to
the amendment of the Senate numbered
2 to the bill and concurred therein, with
an amendment, in which it requested the
concurrence of the Senate.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker hac' affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills, and they were
signed by the Acting President pro
tempore:
H.R.6371. An act to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to the
limitation on retirement income, and with
respect to the taxable year for which the
deduction for interest paid will be allowable
to certain building and loan associations,
mutual savings banks, and cooperative
banks;
H.R.5269. An act for the relief of Dr.
Walter H. Duisberg;
Approved For Release 2004/06/24: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100220082-1
 Approved For Release 2004/06/24: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100220082-1
22172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
H.R.8517. An act to grant emergency of-
ficer's retirement benefits to certain persons
who did not qualify therefor because their
applications were not submitted before May
25, 1929; and
H.R. 10501. An act for the relief of Kenyon
B. Zahner.
PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORIZATION
BILL-CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I submit a
report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate
to the bill (H.R. 13273) authorizing the
construction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and har-
bors for navigation, flood control, and
for other purposes. I ask unanimous
consent for the present consideration of
the report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The report will be read for the
information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of October 12, 1962, pp. 22131-
22140, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Is there objection to the present
consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report. .
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, the report
was agreed to by all the conferees, and is
signed by all members of the conference
committee.
The conferees carried on extensive and
intensive deliberations, and reached an
agreement which will make it possible
to carry forward projects which are ex-
tremely vital to the improvement and
strengthening of our economy.
There were a number of projects on
which hearings had not been held on the
House side, and on which the House con-
ferees could not agree. The Senate
receded very reluctantly on these proj-
ects; but we have received a commitment
from the managers on the part of the
House that the Committee on Public
Works of the House will hold public
hearings as soon as practicable after the
next Congress convenes, on the follow-
ing projects which were considered by
the conferees, and are not included in
this conference report. They are Cape
Fear River Basin, N.C.; Flint River, Ga.;
the South Fork of the Cumberland River,
Ky., and Tenn.; Knowles Dam and Res-
ervoir, Flathead River, Mont.; Burns
Creek Dam and Reservoir, Snake River,
Idaho; Waurika reclamation project,
Oklahoma; Savannah River-Duke Power
Co., South Carolina and Georgia; and
Trotter's Shoal Reservoir, Savannah
River.
Mr. President, I refer to page 48 of the
conference report as presented to the
House by Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, a copy
of which is on the desks of Senators, for
the statement of the managers on the
part of the House, as follows:
EARLY HEARINGS
The managers on the part of the House
made a commitment that the Committee on
Public Works of the House would hold pub-
lic hearings as soon as practicable after the
next Congress convenes on the following
projects which were considered by the con-
ferees and which are not included in this
conference report: Cape Fear River Basing
N.C.; Flint River, Ga.; the South Fork of the
Cumberland River, Ky. and Tenn.; Knowles
Dam and Reservoir, Flathead River, Mont.;
Burns Creek Dam and Reservoir, Snake
River, Idaho; Waurika reclamation project,
Oklahoma; Savannah River-Duke Power Co.,
South Carolina and Georgia, and Trotter's
Shoal Reservoir, Savannah River.
There will also need to be a considera-
tion with respect to basin authorizations,
and perhaps other projects will be avail-
able for consideration by that time-
early in 1963.
In that regard, the total cost of the
projects contained in the bill as passed
by the Senate was $3,692,200,800. With
the reductions made, the conference re-
port provides for a total monetary au-
thorization of $2,260,220,000, and would
authorize some 207 projects.
The largest item taken out of the bill
in the conference was the sum of
$900,300,000 from basin authorizations.
However, with the exception of the Los
Angeles River Basin, in California, there
is enough remaining authorization from
the Flood Control Act of 1960 to cover
the appropriations made in the civil
functions appropriation bill, 1962, for the
fiscal year 1963.
With reference to the Los Angeles
River Basin, the appropriation in the
current civil functions bill exceeded the
existing authorizations by $3,700,000.
Therefore, the only basin allthorization
contained in this bill is the $3,700,000
for the authorization required to cover
the appropriations in the current ap-
propriation bill for the Los Angeles
River Basin.
The situation now is that before the
Civil Functions Appropriation Act for
1963 can be considered and enacted,
to provide the necessary funds for the
orderly continuation of the projects in
the several basins, additional authoriza-
tions will have to be made. It was the
belief of the Senate committee-and
it was approved by the Senate-that
since it was so late in 1962, it would be
the part of wisdom to include in this
bill additional basin authorizations; and
that was done to the extent of approxi-
mately $900 million. That was one of
the items-and the largest one-taken
out of this bill in conference. It does
not mean that the authorizations will
not be passed. They will have to be
passed next year, ahead of next year's
civil functions appropriation bill.
However, the House conferees insisted
that those basin authorizations be
deleted from this bill; and that was
when they gave the assurance that early
in 1963 they would hold hearings and
would initiate proceedings, early in the
session of Congress next year, for the
passage of legislation including not only
the additional basin authorizations
which were taken out of this bill, and
which will be required, next year, but
also they agreed, as I have stated, to
hold hearings on these additional proj-
ects which were deleted from this bill.
Therefore, it is quite apparent that,
while the conference committee reduced
the amount provided in the bill from
$3,692,200,800 to $2,260,000, the net
result is that the difference between the
two amounts will, of necessity, and in
October 1,
accordance with the commitment of the
members of the House Public Work:
Committee, be before the Congress foi
its consideration next year.
With that explanation, I ask for ap-
proval of the conference report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The question is on agreeing to the
conference report.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KERR. I yield to the Senator
from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from
Oklahoma referred to the agreement
made by the House conferees that hear-
ings would be held early next year upon
various projects, including Devils Jump,
which were not included in the bill re-
ported by the conference. It was agreed
also that these separate projects will be
considered early next year in connec-
tion with the river basin projects, and if
approved will be included in an omnibus
bill, which will be acted upon by the
Congress in 1963.
Mr. KERR. In the same bill that
would provide additional river basin au-
thorizations; that is correct.
Mr. COOPER. I note that river basin
projects are not referred to in the para-
graph on page 48 captioned "Early hear-
ings." I am sure it was an oversight.
Mr. KERR. The Senator from Okla-
homa does not regard it as an oversight.
I think it was by reason of the fact that
the managers on the part of the House
took it for granted that Senators and
Members of the House of Representa-
tives both knew existing authorizations
were about exhausted, and that of neces-
sity legislation would be required early
next year for additional basin authori-
zations. I think they had in mind to
make clear and a matter of record their
assurance that there would be hearings
on the projects which were eliminated
from the bill but which had been listed.
Mr. COOPER. I am sure that the
Senator's description of the situation is
correct. The projects listed in the state-
ment of the House managers, and not
included in the bill reported by the con-
ference, if they should be approved by
the House or Senate Public Works Com-
mittee, would become part of the omni-
bus bill which will have to be considered
next year.
Mr. KERR. As the Senator from Ken-
tucky is so well aware, because he spent
so many days in the hearings of the
committee, the projects which have been
set forth in detail and which were de-
leted from the bill were all fully justi-
fled and shown to be worthy and meri-
torio'us by the reports of the various Gov-
ernment agencies-the Chief of Engi-
neers, the Rivers and Harbors Board of
the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Bureau of the
Budget; and certainly they will be just
as meritorious and worthy next year.
It will be the purpose of the Senator
from Oklahoma, as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Flood Control and
Rivers and Harbors, along with other
members of the subcommittee, including
the Senator from Kentucky, who is the
ranking Republican member, to hold
hearings when the bill comes to be con-
Approved For Release 2004/06/24: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100220082-1