(UNTITLED)

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
Release Decision: 
RIPPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
54
Document Creation Date: 
December 15, 2016
Document Release Date: 
February 12, 2004
Sequence Number: 
8
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 1, 1963
Content Type: 
OPEN
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2.pdf10.97 MB
Body: 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE the, legitimate exempt and bona fide private operations, not' to' direct Its main efforts under the`forfeltu~re provision as it relates to safety violations against those who in the norm Course-of their activities are in silbstant1 I compliance with the law or whose violation ii of an unintended and -minor na- ture. Thq language relating to safety viola- tions is viewed as a necessary tool` for the Com~xiisiQn's use in its war on illegal and unlawful operations. the OQ 1miss on in its own; testimony on a number ,of occasions has brought out the good safety compliance record of those car- riers who.operate within the law. In the normal CIse of their activities and rela- bons Wif[1 these carriers the Commission already has sufficlent authority to bring about compliance with the safety regulations. Safety regulation compliance has been a problem with respect to those who do not otherwise pgmply with the law, and it is with a view to these operators that the language relating to the failure or refusal to comply With the rules promulgated by 'the Com- missionpursuant to section 204(a) (1), (2), elusively in forwarding of used household goods also function as forwarders of such shipments. Some carriers have initiated container service as an adjunct to their carrier operations. Because the de- velopment of new techniques is changing the complexion of the household goods moving and forwarding industry, it is believed that the scheme of regulation to be imposed, par- ticularly as regards entry into business, should not impede its natural growth and development. Witnesses representing all factions agreed that regulation of this activ- ity should take account of the special na- ture of household goods forwarding and should be sufffciently flexible in respect of entry controls to assure that existing com- petitive relationships will not be disturbed. Section 4(b) of the bill would amend sec- tion 406(g) of the Interstate Commerce Act to direct the Commission in prescribing reg- ulations and practices of household goods forwarders to consider the similarities of service provided by Inotor`carrlers of house= hold goods. This direction recognizes the (3), and (3a) is included in this section. In close relationship between these two activi- addition, your committee believes that the ties. forfeiture provisions relating to continuing Section 4(c) of the bill would amend sec violations should not apply except In those tion 410 of the act to provide for the issuance cases where adequate notice has been given of a permit to operate as a freight forwarder after the initial' offense is discovered. of used household goods to any person found p `SECTION 4 by the Commission to be fit, willing, and able SeCtipn 4 of the 7ii11 would ,remove the ex- p openly to perform the service proposed. emption of "used household goods'} from the Permits are to be of 1-year duration and provisions of section 402(b) of the Tnterstate renewable' annually. Both original and re- newal applications must be accompanied by Commerce, Act. n consequence of the re- moval of this exe}nption, the provisions of a fee of $50. Neither a "grandfather" clause part IV of the Interstate Commerce' Act be, nor a finding of public need is deemed neces- cofne applicable to freight forwarders of used sary for the effective regulation of this activ- household goods,'except as otherwise pro- ity. Indeed, more stringent entry control vlded by section 4 of the bill. would tend only to prefer those who have The transportation by motor` vehicle of used initiated token operations. Many persons YIOUSeho14 goods in interstate commerce has have operated as freight forwarders of used been- re ulated since 1935. When the Freight household goods only sporadically, but un- 'QrwareT llct was passed in 194' the pre- less they are allowed to qualify for a permit ponderance of household goods shipments upon a showing of fitness, they will lose Xi1OF2C1,by,motor common carrier: The vol business to competitors and be unable to e"-- goods forwardin - at that serve their customers as they have in the gii? A. g g past. Such a loss or redistribution of busi- Qf s t islat was ojincensequential to warrant leg- ness is not intended. -islati0u. n z'eeent years the development of contaerizatj.op and its application to Section 4(d) of the bill would amend sec- the transportation of used household goods tion 410(c) of the act to enable a motor com- has had a vast impact upon both the manner mon carrier of household goods to qualify of shipment and competitive relationships as a freight forwarder of used household Within the industry. Today, a substantial goods. Since many such carriers are now volume of Yiousellold goods shipments are functioning as forwarders, this provision is handles 'lyv forwarders in so-called door-to- required to enable them to perform the same door container service. Instead of loading service they have in the past. andividua, articles-,of furniture into a ipotor- Section 4(e) of the bill would amend see- tion 410(e) of the act to make the provi- sions of that section' inapplicable to freight to oversea gtion (or to a port in the case of an of an forwarders of used household goods. In Oversee si)Ipment where the goods are packed Into a s a van for water transportation) order to afford forwarders of used house- housghol , goods`tpipments moving by this hold goods the flexibility which their oper- mode are,packed or consolidated in a con- ations require, permits to be issued should tamer in p hom9, forwarded'by rail, motor, contain no territorial restrictions. This or water carrier destination, then un- provision is intended to effectuate this ob- packed from the same container at destina- jective. Section 4(f) of the bill would amend sec- tion 44 411(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act to the point-where the preponderance of overseas shipments of used household goods to enable a motor common carrier or a di- are handled I,n this }nanner. Witnesses who rector, officer, employee, or agent of such supported this bill indicated that the co, carrier to control, acquire control, or hold twiner in ,de Will be used with increasing stock in a freight forwarder of used house- hold goods. Again this provision is needed , frequency for purely domestic shipments as well, to protect the position of carriers or carrier With t4 e advent of contslperizaiQn, there personnel who have acquired a stock interest in a freight forwarder of used household indu f fr i ht'f d a t d h g n s ry o e or- as eveope wider o hseci ousehold 'goods who Ape- goods. Section 4(g) of the bill would amend see- ce i}_ s #t and ~vho ble t been up- tion 417(b) of the act to accomplish the cessfa ful In divertin consider derable traffic from same objectives as those outlined in the dis- certificatd d c h car riers of cussioh of section 2 relating -to the amend- forw s.househ5ld goods. Such forwarders employ . ment of section 222(b) of the act. the services. of T gulated rail, motor, and E. water carviers and compete with motor com- SECTION s rnon carriers of h9 }seould goods with respect Sections recommended in the President's to rates,,p, _eerv, e. Regulation of this ac- transpor`tatron message, would authorize the tiv~,ty is, I'li6refore, needed In the'public in- Interstate Commerce Commission to make terest. agreements wltri States to cooperate in the 4 4/ 3 ~ ~- P65B00383R0OO400210bO8-2 pproved For Releaee OO 16451 enforcement of the' economic or safety laws and regulations of the various States or of the Federal Government with respect to highway transportation. Of this provision the message stated: "This law would be consistent with col- lateral efforts to develop and adopt uniform State registration laws for motor carriers operating within States but handling inter- state commerce. The purpose of both of these efforts is to help eliminate unlawful trucking operations which abound because of diverse, ambiguous laws and practical limitations in enforcement.' Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I fully appreciate and recognize that the Commerce Committee has had a busy session. I hope, however, that it will have a chance to give this important measure expeditious and favorable con- sideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred. The bill (S. 2152) to amend the In- terstate Commerce Act, as amended, so as to strengthen and improve the Na- tional Transportation System, and for other purposes, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Commit- tee on Commerce. TAXATION OF SMALL MUTUAL AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES ON BOND DISCOUNT Mr. LONG of Louisiana, Mr. Presi- dent, I introduce, for appropriate refer- ence, a bill to amend the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1954 to permit small mutual insurance companies and life insurance companies to be taxed on bond discount like other taxpayers. I ask unanimous consent that an explanation of the bill, prepared by me, be printed in the RECORD. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, -without objection, the explanation will be printed in the RECORD. The bill (S. 2154) to amend the Inter- nal Revenue Code of 1954 to permit small mutual insurance companies and life in- surance companies to be taxed on bond discount like other taxpayers, introduced by Mr. LONG of Louisiana, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance. The explanation presented by Mr. LONG of Louisiana is as follows: EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT PROVIDING CAP- ITAL GAINS TREATMENT ON MARKET PROFITS REALIZED BY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND SMALL MUTUAL FIRE AND CASUALTY IN- SURANCE COMPANIES FROM THE PURCHASE OF BONDS AT LESS THAN PAR VALUE Under present law, life insurance compa- nies, and small mutual fire and casualty in- surance companies are the only taxpayers denied capital gains treatment on market profits realized from bonds purchased at less than par value. This results because these taxpayers are required to accrue an- nually a pro-rata part of the difference be- tween the par or face value of the bond and its lower purchase price. All other taxpay- ers report bond discount as capital gains when the bond is sold or redeemed. Until last year, medium, and large mutual fire and casualty insurance companies were also required to accrue bond discount, but this was changed, by the Revenue Act of 1962. On March 15 of this year, I introduced S. 1104 which eliminated the requirement for accruing discount on tax-exempt bonds only. S. 1104 was restricted to discount on mu- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R00010021OQ08-2 16452 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : ?IA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September nicipal bonds so as to eliminate the neces- sity of litigating the question of whether amounts of accrued discount on`L~ ax-exempt bonds were to be treated as tax-exempt in- terest or fully taxable interest. "T'his is an issue recently raised, by an Internal Revenue ruling (Rev. Ruling 60-210), and should be resolved by legislation and not left for the courts to decide. The litigation of this recently created is- sue would be expensive both tp taxpayers and to the Government and involves only years after 1960veven though the statute re- quiring accrual of discount has been in ex- istence since 1942. Prior to 1961,nutual fire and casualty insurance compan1 s and life insurance companies consistently and uni- formly treated the accrued discount on mu- nicipal bonds as tax-exempt interest. S. 1104, by allowing capital gains treat- ment on municipal bond discount, would avoid this litigation by giving life insur- ance companies and small mutual fire and casualty insurance companies the same re- lief from Revenue Ruling 60-210 that was accorded to medium and large mutual fire and casualty insurance companies last year by the Revenue Act of 1962. Thus, all tax- payers to which Revenue Ruling 60-210 ap- plied would be treated alike. 11 Since the introduction of S. 104, I have had inquiries suggesting that I.-expand my proposal to also eliminate the requirement of accruing market discount on taxable bonds, It was pointed out to me that the be proposed by me, to, resolution of ratification of the treaty banning nu- clear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater, and ask that it be printed. ` The reservation tnould assure that this Nation, under the treaty, would be permitted the use of .Atomic weapons in the event of warfare. . The VICE PRESIDENT. The ro erva- tion will be received, printed, and will he on the table, as requested by the Sen- ator from Louisiana. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, with re- -spect to the pending resolution of ratifi- cation, I send to the d0 k an amendment and also a reservation,,and ask that they be printed, and also that they be printed in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment and reservation will be re- -ceived, printed, and will lie on the table, and, without objection,. will be printed in The amendment an' reservation are as follows: - AMENDMNT At the end of the resolution of ratification add the following new paragraph: "Following ratification of the treaty by the Praesidium of the Suprerne Soviet, the See- retary of the Senate is hereby instructed to retur:a this Resolution to the President of original purpose of the provision requiring the United States for appropriate action." t life insurance companies to accrue discoun on bonds at the time it was first enacted in the Revenue Act of 1942 was tp provide a means of taxing this type of capital gains since life Insurance- companies were not taxed on capital gains at that time. This purpose is recognized in The Confer- ence Committee Report of the Revenue Act of 1942 (77th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 2586) where at page 53 the elimination'by the Sen- ate of the House provisions including capi- tal gains and losses from incortie and de- luotions and the Senate addition of the provisions relating to amortization of bond premium and discount provisions were ex- plained as follows: "Amendment No. 206. * * * Capital gains are excluded In the tax base, and amortization of bond premiums and accrual of bond discount j provided for." Since the Life Insurance Company In- come Tax Act of 1959, however,,, life insur- ance companies have been subjected to tax on their capital gains. Therefore, the origi- nal reason for requiring the accrual of dis- count on all bonds by life insurance com- panies no longer exists. This bill, by eliminating the required ac- crual of market discount for all. bonds, will correct ji matter which was overlooked when the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959 was enacted. Also, liy providing similar treatment for small mutual fire and casualty insurance companies, it will correct an oversight in the Revenue Act of 1962 when the required accrual of bond discount was eliminated for medium and large mutual fire and casualty insurance companies but not for the smaller companies. The bill applies to tax years beginning after December 31, 1962, the same effective date as is applied to medium, and large mutual fire and casualty insurance com- panies by the Revenue Act of 1962. I am informed that the annl)al revenue loss caused by the enactment of this bill will be less than $1 million, after taking into ac- count the capital gains taxes that are ulti- mately due. RESERVA'i' ON Before the period at the end of the reso- lution of ratification inset a comma and the following: "subject to the reservation, which Is hereby made a part aid condition of the resolution of ratification, that the instru- ment of ratification of ? the treaty by the United States shall not lie deposited as pro- vided by paragraph 3 of article III thereof until the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics has paid all of its delinquent assessments to the United Nations". NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULE-AME1 DMENT OF DE- PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO- PRLATION BILL, 1964 Mr. LAUSCHE submitted the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule XL of the Stand- ing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice In writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of role XVI-for the pur- pose of proposing to the bill (H.R. 6754) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies for the fis- cal year ending June 30,1964, and for other purposes, the following amendment; namely: On page 38, between lines 5 and 6, :insert a new section as follows: "Sac. 608. (a) The second sentence of sec- tion 4 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 904), is amended by striking out "and shall bear Interest at the rate of 2 per centum Per annum; Interest rates on the unmatured and unpaid balance -nf any loans made pursuant to this section prior to the effective data of this amendment shall be adjusted to 2 per centum per annum, and the maturity date of any such loans may be readjusted to occur at a date not be- yond thirty-five years from the date of such. loan:", and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "and shall bear interest at a rate equal. to the average rate of interest payable by the United States of ~merica on its mar- NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY-RES-, ketable obligations, having maturities of ten ERVATIONS AND AMENDMENT or more years, issued during the last pre- ceding fiscal year in which any such obliga- Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- ,tions were Issued and; adjusted to the dent, I submit a reservation, intended to nearest one-eighth of o.te per centum: "(b) The third sentence of section 5 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1933, as amended (7 U.S.C. 905), is amended by strik- ing out "and shall be at a rate of interest of 2 per centum per annum; interest rates on the unrnatured and unpaid balance of any loans made pursuant to this section prior to the effective date of this amendment shall be adjusted to 2 per centum per annum", and inserting in lieu thereof "and shall bear in- terest at a rate equal to the average rate of interest payable by the United States oi' America on its marketable obligations, having maturities of ten or more years, is- sued during the last preceding fiscal year in which any such obligations were issued and adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of one per centum.". "(c) The amendments made by tEiis see - tion shall be effective with respect to all loans made on and after the date of e'aact- ment of this Act." Mr. LAUSCHE also submitted art amendment, intended to be proposed by him, to House bill 6754, making appro- priations for the Department of Agri- culture and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. (For text of amendment referred to, see the foregoing notice.) ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I ask: unanimous consent that at the next printing of the bill (S. 108) making Columbus Day a legal holiday, the name of Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey be in- eluded as a cosponsor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that at the next printing of the bill (S. 2115) to improve the balance-of-payments position of the United States by permitting the use of reserved foreign currencies in lieu of dol- lars for current expenditures, the name of Mr. DoMlxicx be included as a, co- sponsor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. AID TO VIETNAM-ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF RESOLUTION Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, last Thursday I submitted a resolution (S. Res. 196) which provides that unless the Government of South Vietnam abandons policies of repression against its own people and makes a deterillined and ef- fective effort to regain their support, military, and economic assistance to that Government should not be continued. :f left the resolution on the table for a week until noon, Thursday, September 19, so that other Senators could join in cosponsorship. The latest Senators ask- ing to cosponsor the resolution are the senior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the junior Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MCINTYRE], and the junior Senator from -Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS]. I ask unanimous consent for their names to be added. This brings to 30 the number of Senators now sponsoring the resolution. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : PIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved for Release, 2004/03/1A G1A-RDP65B00383RO0Q1.002-10008-2 . '.. CONGRESSIONAL tEcORP - SENATE 16487 disciplines applicable to human relations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there whether we have a test ban treaty or The importance of the spiritual values has further morning business? If not, not. too often been forgotten, and too much re Iiance has been placed on pu re ly ' material morning business is closed. The critics and opponents of the treaty progress. The Ufffted nations Charter rep- THE NUCLEAR TEST who want to continue atmospheric test- resents a great ' effort to redress this im- balance. BAN TREATY ing have no scientific breakthrough in I THE i mind that would reestablish any degree Senate, resumed the considera- of military supremacy for the United "Since the Second: World war three polit- teal imperatives have emerged with 1rrrsist- tion of Executive M (88thCong., 1st sess., States comparable to our breakthrough able Rxce.a are s ping the course of his- the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in nuclear weapons. What they are Cory' in this 2d fiat of the 26th century. In the atmosphere, in outer space, and talking about are the refinements of nu- They are: The outlawing of war as a means underwater. clear weaponry that carry with them an of settling international disputes, the aboli- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ever-widening range of accompanying Lion of the -Aependence of certain peoples on others, and international cooperation with question is on agreeing"to the resolution defense systems. a view to igiprovng the levels of living of of ratification. Take the antimissile missile, about the developing peoples. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is which so much has been said in this de- "x vq WORK TO no rather surprising tome that the debate bate. Of course, the scientists who have "The United Nations has made. incontest- and discussion of this-treaty have gone the responsibility of developing this able progress in prosecuting these ends; but to far afield from the subject it treats. Weapon do not regard atmospheric test- the work, v{hich remains for it to do is of Its.oentra1 purpose. was, and still is to ing as necessary to its development. But much greater dimensions. curb pollution of the earth's atmosphere there are opponents of the treaty who do. "In, the broad, historic process ' which Is with radiation. Yet the effort to do so Even from them, I have heard nothing in moving toward the attainment of the ideals has brought on a debate that seems to the debate or the testimony which would of the ctafter, each General Assembly has question the value of the treaty not be- indicate that an installed antimissile marked a swpi le 1 o ehope that this 18th sessioiawiil be z}? excause of what it does but because of what missile, with a civilian defense shelter "The importance which the United Nations it does not do. Program which will be the next adjunct has acquired compels it to adapt its methods I 'suppose that my own criticisms and we will be asked to finance, perfected of, work to the increasing demands it is called doubts about the value of the treaty also through continued atmospheric testing upon to satisfy. The efficiency of the or- go to what it does not do. I very much by all nations, would furnish the Ameri- ganization will depend to a great extent on regret that there is not more to the can people with a greater degree of the efilciency of its methods of work. We treaty; that it does not ban all nuclear safety than we now have. effe t all co. peiate'fn making it a ready and I shall announce my complete opposi- ffctive in#rument responding to the needs testing; that it does not put any real of the moment ant prepared to face those curb on the armament race; that it does tion, when it reaches the floor of the of the future. not call for disarmament of the kind Senate, to what I consider to be the "Despite all the divergent views, conflicting that would permit substantial cuts in our deception and fraud being practiced on Interests aii4 passions which must naliurally defense budget. the American people by the passage in find expression in an international parlia- the House of Representatives yesterday went, we also share ideals and aspirations it is a step so small it may never be of a so-called fallout shelter program. which c_Qnstitute azj invaluable comm,Qn de-, noticed in the history of the world, if it How deceptive can we be? How can we nominator permitting us to smooth out our' is not followed up with more steps in the justify on moral grounds leading the differences rnd helping us to achieve accept- same direction. .. American people to believe that a shel- able solutiol~s ?T4at is the .basis for my reservations. ter program will be an effective protec- "vRrrvs,ro~vszsTzrwr The objections that have been voiced by tionfor them in case of a nuclear war? "Many a diilicuity can be overcome If we others, however, indicate a fear that it Mr. President, many scientists and put aside the often artificially created fears may be followed by additional steps. military propagandists are deceiving the and `prejudices which distort reality and Yet out of all the military and scien- American people on this point, and I will hamper understanding. Moreover, a sound tific testimony I have not heard the case not vote for a single dollar of appropria- tnterp oseeon of tth principles of `tfie charter made that the overall advantage in con- tions for any so-called fallout shelter presuppposes that they are to be applied im- partially. The principles and precepts of the tinued and unlimited testing by all na- program, because it is a delusion and an charter are the sarigg for all; we should not tions-in other words the advantage of illusion, it is a shockingingly deceptive exempt some from what we demand of others, rejecting the treaty-would lie with the device on the part of some propagandists nor excuse In somx:e, what in others we con- United States, who seek to continue a military buildup dema, $uch i consistencies weaken the Let us not forget that defeat of the trust that is bound to bring mankind to moral f 4xce"o# t o SSembiy and breed mss- treaty and continued atmospheric test- destruction. t t aa skepticism. trig by the United States, as advocated by What will the historians write, 100 " dence that thedebates, have eyery aonli which will take place during this session and some opponents of the treaty, would also years from today, if there is then any in which sp many eminent states from all mean continued atmospheric testing by society, about the immorality of our gen- over the world v~,'ill ,participate, will proceed the Soviet Union and the progressive and eration, the immorality of the Amer- in an atmosphere of understanding, harmony, rising number of nuclear tests of other scans the Russians, the British, the and mutzai respect and will increase the types of weapons by other countries. Frenc~i, and all the other leading nations trust placed by the peoples of the world in of the world? Never before has such a the United la~},tions;, and that, while they ob- The development of nuclear weapons, viously cannot solve all the serious problems together with their systems of delivery, chapter of immorality been written by facing the world today, they will at least has brought the American people ever man. The armaments race is a sinful help to clear the ground for the solution of nearer to total destruction, not safety. and immoral thing; and it should be those problems. Thisisso because we are unable to limit ended. "The ;united Nations is, in a sense, a mir- them to the United. States. During that There are some interesting 'conceal- ror Which the world, and the spirit brief period at the close of World War II, ments of the great damage already done in which ptir debates are conducted is bound when the United States and Britain by fallout. Despite the propagandists to spread beyond these wails to all the na- alone had the nuclear capacity, we might who are seeking to deceive the American tfor of the glabe_ have known that moment of complete people into the opinion that we can con- " Qartupajely, this session opens in an aus- pgi~cious atmosphere' International Pension supremacy in the world that few nations tinue atmospheric tests and not do ir- lias beers r duce4 by the welcome signature ever enjoy. But our supremacy was only reparable damage to generations of un- of, the l pscavi ea, y, and in all parts of the momentary; it, proved to be an incentive born children. Last summer the dairy- world men' fears axe replaced by hope. for others to. acquire the same weapons. men in Minnesota had to keep their I be c divine providence to enlighten Today we hear it said in France that no herds in the barns 24 hours a day-day our, shin send .to unify our efforts so that, nation that lacks nuclear weapons can and night. They did not publicize that thus ins lred lusandion united, gpnawe inter tangsk to of a be a first-class nation or exert influence fact, because they thought publicity rne1ny ' conc pea ce among nations and pro- or leadership in the world. France is might have an adverse effect on the milk matntg nations afntn the progress and well-being of all busily acting on that premise, as is China, industry; but the fallout in that part of mankind." " and I expect other nations to follow suit , the United States was so dangerous that, Approved `Ft* Release "2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R0.00100210008-2 16488 Approved Mr. President, in responding to the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas, I should like the REcoari to show my very great admiration for his leadership in the handling of the treaty and in this historic debate in the Senate. In his work as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I have the honor to be a member, he has made a magnificent record of statesmanship. I have a commitment to go to the west coast, and therefore I shall have to leave immediately after completing my speech; but 1 wish to take this moment to express my compliments to the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Sena- tor from Oregon. Certainly he has done his part in connection'with the treaty. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, too many of those who are trying to be more military than the military think of national defense 'only in terms of weapons. Yet defense really means the protection of the lives and property of American citizens. Armies, nuclear weapons, and missiles may or may not contribute to that protection. I sup- pose that is a concept that few Amer- icans care to consider. It is contrary to the military dogmas of our day to mention the fact that the use of these pieces of hardware will also mean the failure of our defense system to defend the United States. 'Using them will mean the destruction of the lives, prop- erty, and freedom of trillions upon mil- lions of Americans, and probably the permanent destruction or at least cur- tailment of what we all like to call the American way of life. Well then, it may be said that the important thing is not having an anti- missile-missile for thg sake of using it, but only for the sake of having it. The nation that first deve'ops and installs a -reasonable anti-missile-missile is said to gain a politicaj, advantage that will en- courage it to undertake aggression it could not otherwise risk. That seems to mean that the existence of a military weapon is valuable primarily for its po- litical effect. But tlen we are agreed that these weapons, and the desirability of testing, them, are political more than military questions. Much the same is true of the 100- megaton bomb. I heard many doubts expressed during the hearings about whether it was wise to ban atmospheric testing after the Russians had tested bombs in this magnitude. Yet I never heard anyone who raised this point state that the United States should test bombs in this range. I do ndt know to this day whether that is thee conclusion to be For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2c CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September from the; standpoint of health, it was not safe, even to turn the dairy herds out of the barns. It is about time for us to get to the American people the facts about fallout, even though they might have a bad effect on the dairy industry. Mr. President, I offer no apology for basing my support of the treaty 100 per- cent on moral grounds. I pray. to God that the treaty may be the first step which will help bring mankind to its senses before it is too late, and will lead to an ending of the sinful nuclear arma- ments race. As a member of the Committee on For- eign Relations, I have studied long and hard the testimony submitted in con- nection with the treaty by scientists, militarists, and civilian political spokes- men. Over the past several years, I have interested myself in the entire matter of nuclear armaments, and from time to time have spoken-to the boredom of many Senators, I am sure-ever since the sinful nature of this race became crystal clear to me and ever since I be- came convinced of the inevitable destruc- tion of a large part of civilization if we do not live up to our military responsibil- ities and start doing the things neces- sary to be done in order to bring to an end the immoral, nuclear armaments race. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield? Mr. MORSE. I am-glad to yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from Oregon has made a very good point in regard to deception of the American peo- ple. He will recall the testimony of Dr. York-who, I believe is generally recog- nized as one of the great authorities in the field of the long-range aspects of the antiballistic-missile system, and who states that, in his opinion, there is no question that offense would always be much easier to develop and would always overcome any antiballistic-missile system one could have. Mr. MORSE. I do not believe there is any doubt about that. Mr. F ULBRIGHT. In other words, it Is a deception to pretend that we can de- velop a system which will protect us from all these missiles. Mr. MORSE. I believe that point needs to be emphasized again and again. But if the nuclear armaments race is continued, it can result in the develop- ment of hideous destructive devices for killing. Mr. FULaBRIGHT. Yes. Mr. MORSE. That is the test. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I wish to add that what the Senator from Oregon has said about this race is quite appropriate; and some way must be found to bring it under control, for it is getting completely out of hand. Certain groups are now develop- ing vested interests in these operations- as was evident in Miami, the other day, through the demonstration by the Air Force Association. It is now clear that unless we act reasonably soon to bring this race under control, a strong political movement which would be very difficult to control may develop. Mr. MORSE. I completely agree. The testimony was, ample in showing that our nuclear program did not con- template going into that range of weap- ons. We could have developed it in that direction, but we chose not to. There was no evidence that We would go in this direction in the absence of a test treaty, and I heard no critical of the treaty sug- gest that we do so. The value of advances in weaponry achieved by wide open testing by our- selves and all interested nations can only 18 be judged in terms of what other coun- tries are likely to do and in terms of the impact of this level of military spending upon our own economy. This, of course, is why we have civilian control over the military-and I pray that we keep it. Yet I am very much disturbed about a dangerous type of military buildup in the United States. I refer to the buildup of what I consider dangerous influence of the military on American public policy. There have been implications of it in the present debate, for in the debate there have been Senators who seem to be of the opinion that the judgments of the military should be substituted for those of American civilian officials in the determination of American public policy. As a constitutionalist, I say from the floor of the Senate today to the American people, "Keep yourselves on guard againts the power of this military. Keep yourselves on guard against the growing and dangerous power of Ameri- can military minds over public policy, for it is important in a democracy to keep the military always in its place; and its place is subordinate to our civilian leaders. Its place is to carry out policy determined by our civilian leaders, and not determined by military minds." If the time'ever comes when American foreign policy is determined by American military authorities, we are on our way to inevitable war. I speak weighing fully the meaning and implication of every word that I utter. If we permit the American military to determine American foreign policy, or have the determining voice in American foreign policy, we are on our way to an inevitable war and the destruction of our country, for all of history points out that unless we keep military forces in control, they will lead us to a manifestation of their art, which is the art of war. I congratulate the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Rusk, for their repetitive ac- tion during this administration to make perfectly clear to the military in the Pentagon that the Commander in Chief is still the President of the United States under our Constitution. There is more implication in what I have uttered in connection with the treaty than the words at first analysis may seem to indicate. As I have said, this is why we have civilian control over the military. It. is why the power to declare war resides in Congress, and why the limitations on funds for the military establishment were written into the Constitution. In today's world, arms and weapons alone are not a source of security or pro- tection. If they are used, the nation in- volved in, the exchange will have failed to achieve the primary purpose of de- fense, in the sense of protecting its peo- ple. The existence, the handling, and the nature of the military establishment and its component parts are hence vital political questions, as well as military ones. The importance of having an antimis- sile is not in using it, but in its effect Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release"0.04/03/1 :CIA-RDP65B00383RQQ0100210008-- 1,263,- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Or will At merely encourage them tc, im- how political and economic conditions prove their own Weapons systems in an can overwhelm military objectives to effort to overcome our advantage?- We know that the same thing can happen already know, that the development of. in the United States. nuclear, ;we pons, by the United States. So it is that the hazards of radiation did not repel other from acquiring them, must.also enter into these political de- due elth to heir,.gost or to their horror. cisions.. We have already assured the They are the status symbol of a first class death,.Qf an, unknown number of people, power. 'Mlle missi, delivery system will and-assured the defkormity of many more undoubtedly be the next. by the testing we have done to acquire I do not.. 4ean 1Q deny, or to belittle our present nuclear arsenal. Every fur- in, any way the importance of military ther improvement in that arsenal that is defense against Communist aggression, tested, and every new weapon that is the country has voted more funds for the military end of defense of the free world than I have in the-last 19 years. Time and, time ,again I have .voted more fundsfor th ?defense of. our coun- try than all, the Presidents under whom I have served hay requested. I have voted for more f>;nds than., President Roosevelt, Iecomu ended; more_ funds than President Tillman recomlxteed; more funds . than, president Eisenhower reQomineridp'd,{ and already in one _case in Connection wit,,4 sea power, I have voted for more _ funds than President Kennedy recommended. , Each of us has to come to our conclu- sion of how. much is enough, and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion .that the increased sums we are spending for further' weapons development are add- ifg little .to,,our total security. I recognize the importance of keeping this country so strong that Russia will understand. 24,hourg.of the day and night that she, h#s everything to lose and nothing to gain by nuclear war. The sad fact is that it is trlw of us, too, and it is true of every nation which. might involve itself in nuclear,war, and it is also 11 sadly true of all, peaceful nations that do not want to be ipvolved.in a nuclear war. They cannot escape its conse- quences, Certainly military weaknesses and capabilities are, themselves a large political factor.. But it also seems to me to be more true than at any time in ..our history that the defense of the United. States-meaning the protection of lives, property, and po- litical and,, ~conomie systems-depends upon econonic,arfc(,lolitical factors Not the. lea~5t of them is the impact of a military system like the one we have-upon our economy. Guns versus butter. Up to some point, there is a case to .be made that like public works, or like leafraking, Government, pending for armaments in- jects a stimulus into our economy. We are bearing the argument being made ?_Ai- f no- e f at the expense-of an-untold number of unborn children. Even assuming that not one of these weapons is ever fired in anger, its very testing will bring pain and death. Some of these victims will be Ameri- .cans, The longer the nuclear arms race continues and..the more nations that get into the race, the more American chil- dren will die from it. So will Russian children, and so will children in countries that never spend a penny on a weapon of their own. If Senators say that the radiation from testing is not bad enough to worry about, then I say, "You only mean you are not worrying about it today." Some- one will have to worry about it tomorrow. But by then it may be too late to do anything about.it. That is why I think it is unfortunate that the debate over this treaty has got- ten so far. -away from the small and limited objective of the treaty. When I hear Cuba, and Berlin, and the anti- missile missile dragged into this debate, I know that they are being dragged in by men who do not want the issue of the need to test versus the radiation hazard from testing to stand alone to be voted up or down. They are not satisfied to let-this treaty stand or fall on its merits. Every issue we have had with communism everywhere in the world for the. past _ 50 years is being brought in, in the effort to tip the scales against the treaty. Not only is the past being made an issue, but so are future possibilities of amendments. Article II, section 2 of the treaty states: Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all of the original Parties. The amendment shall enter into force for all Parties upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by a majority of all the Parties, including the instruments of ratification of all of the Original Parties. p g, or oreign aid-over Note the language, Mr. President, half of which is rain tions-is a boQn,_to "upon the deposit of instruments of rati- our economy. If foreign aid is_a good fication." That is the language of the thing because it puts men to work and treaty. Under the Constitution of the keeps factories running, I shudder to United States, it is impossible for us to think what arguments will be made deposit such an Instrument until the against any reductlQns in our. own De- Senate has given its advice and consent fense Establishment, should they become to that ratification. We know that a possible. treaty is not effective insofar as we are But at some paint, military spending concerned unless and until it has been becomes more of.,adrag than a.stimulus, ratified by the Senate. If Senators do and this, too, is a political decision,. Cer- not understand that, I do not know how tainly if the economic underpinnings of it can be made any more clear by adding our Defense Establishment ever gave such an understanding to the treaty. It way, the free world Would, collapse with- Is the Constitution of the United States out a shot ever being fired against it. We that governs our -ratification procedure, 16489 and the treaty declares that amend ments to it must be ratified by all the original parties. The alarms raised about possible amendments being achieved by executive action are all of the "what if" variety. It is pretty hard to see how or why the President of the United States would violate the Constitution by depositing an instrument of ratification of an amend- ment to this treaty when ti had not in fact been ratified by the Senate. If he should, then he would be subject to both the legal action authorized by the Con- stitution and to the political action that his opponents would certainly undertake. But suppose that in fear that the President might illegally announce the ratification of a future amendment, the Senate rejects the treaty. What is to stop any President from suspending tests in the prohibited atmosphere, anyway? As Chief Executive, he does not need rat- ification of this treaty by the Senate in order to make U.S. policy conform to the terms of the treaty. Or suppose we add to the treaty the language that has been suggested, to the effect that all future amendments must be ratified by the U.S. Senate in order to make them legal from the American standpoint? If a future President were inclined to violate the Constitution in order to ac- cept an amendment to the treaty, he could also Ignore the language added by the Senate and simply make American policy conform to the amendment. If ever I listened to an example of surplusage, the proposal to add some- where in the treaty a definition that ratification means approved by two- thirds of the Senate is it. That is what ratification means, anyway, under the Constitution. I do not know why the fear argument is being used. I am at a loss to understand this "windmilling" in the Senate, without the windmill even being connected to a servicable pump. This is diversion. This is confusion. This is "scarecrowism." It has no relevancy to the Constitution of the United States and the treatymaking powers and procedures set forth in the organic law involved. I wish to make clear to my leadership that I am not interested in placating anyone by agreeing that unessential language be added to this treaty or to its resolution of acceptance. The resolu- tion should be voted up or down without the change of a comma. I believe the leadership of the Senate has a -duty to put it to a vote without the change of a comma, and to let the American people judge that vote. If a future President were inclined to violate the Constitution in order to ac- cept an amendment to the treaty, he could also Ignore the language added by the Senate and ' make American policy conform to- the amendment. Or he might even devise a way of depositing the instrument of ratification without submitting the amendment to the Sen- ate. If we are contemplating a possible President who would violate the Con- stitution, I assume such a person would also be able to get around a mere Sen- ate amendment. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 if any President should ever try to further steps to guard against surprise it is a very small and limited objec- follow such a course of action in viola- attack without signing a formal treaty tiivpeven any us in the treaty. { here tion of the oath he took when sworn in on this point. is not curbing radioactive that ive pollution. on Inauguration Day, I would hope that If any agreement along those lines succeed nolgradi a, France and there would be a sufficient number in proves possible, it certainly should take The ot v China, major o probably pollute the -'world the Congress who would vote to impeach the form of a treaty. C will pr pro testing, and these events him. That is the safeguard the Ameri- But even if we fail to reach further with i a, both mst United hand can people have written into the Con- agreements with the Soviet Union, I be- could could lead back into the Uit d States te business. and stitution. He would be subject to im- lieve the pending treaty is sound and ad- any Russia the signatories test simplwit Or peachment. vantageous to the United States. The- draw w or ucould si they treaty I am at a loss to understand this ver- Secretary of Defense has testified that for reasons unilaterally a its own, ieaty balistic gymnastic program contemplated it is advantageous to us even on mili- for signatories own, immediately mmed from any by the Senate on this subject matter in tary grounds, in that confining weapons ofur eall a further the commitment to it. recent days. It has no relevancy to the tests to underground would slow down limited Constitution and the safeguards written the Soviet Union as it seeks to close the When overwhelming frail and linvited into the Constitution in connection with gap with us in warheads of lower ranges, treaty one treat nuclear against stacks this stockpiles oes now in existence, ratification of treaties, and the great whi'.le the United States has little in- wide nuclear in itself the treaty is check the American people have under terest in the gap in the higher yield it evident r srain of sand fn he ocean of the Constitution, which retains for Con- ranges, where the Russians apparently scarcely de gstruction. gress the right to impeach a President hold the lead. potential destruction. I. welcome the opportunity to vote takes his oath processes I quote the testimony of the Secretary for it, and I hope it will be ratified by who upon him m when he he constitutional binding g upon ofDefense on this paint. He said: an overwhelming majority. of ohink the negotiators The risks under the beaty are either small In my opinion, we have nothing to I thi esi himself, the treaty' or under our control, and the values of the ' lose from it and we may gain ma- ins the President himself, are to be cam- treaty are substantial even if we consider measurably. That is an opportunity mended for the language which clearly only the military area. that we do not often have presented future I emphasize the word "only." these days and I cannot conceive of the aendments. To objratificationect of that any the treaty y dmend does not spell out the constitutional That is the conclusion of the Secre- American people, through their tienate, process by which the United States rati- tary of Defense. In his opinion, the turning their backs upon it. fies a treaty is a pretty flimsy ground for treaty is advantageous to the United Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will opposition to the treaty itself. We have States in terms of its, impact in the mili- the Senator MORSE. yield to the Senator over 600 treaties in effect, ratified by an tary area alone. from Aequal number of acceptance resolutions, The Joint Chiefs of Staff were more FU Arkansas. sas T. I wish vmuch none of which have language of this kind conservative. They said that: Mr. FU R deep a wish very er to the in them. While there are military disadvantages to to I invite Senators to show me, during the treaty, they are not so serious as to ren- Senator from Oregon for an incisive and the debate on the treaty, in over 600 der it unacceptable. informative speech. This is not the first treaties which have been ratified by this The most serious reservation they had time he has made such a speech. We have become so accustomed to very pene- body, language such as is here proposed, was, in fact, a political one. It was that crating analyses by the Senator from does a relaxation in tensions might result Oregon that sometimes we let them pass If th add it resolution this one, in the preamble the else 600 , that from the treaty that would mean a let- without comment, but he has made a tshe cast t a reflection n on on anywhere this a t down. in military preparedness. That very fine speech. went before? was the chief concern expressed by the There are a couple of points 1 wish to It is now proposed to put into the pre- Joint Chiefs; yet it is not even a military emphasize. On one of them I wish to ask amble of the pending acceptance res- one. a question. o l the language in question. This I know that witnesses can be held up On page 9 of his statement he states: would not affect the treaty itself, and as examples of patriotic, dedicated men Or any of the signatories could simply would avoid the embarrassing all assing the other predir who have devoted their lives to the mill- withdraw or unilaterally abrogate the treaty 'went of going back to hsignets with a restatement of our own tars service or to the scientific research for reasons oi its own, immediately freeing Constitution. But it is, in my opinion, that goes into military weaponry, and allthe otne tign signatories from any further unnecessary and undesirable to put it in it can be said that this one and that one understand. the preamble of the resolution, either, opposes the treaty. I think that all the I am not quite sure I un Does the Senator mean the three original for all the same reasons. witnesses who appeared at the hearings I hope we have not reached the point start even in their patriotism and in parties, or all the signatories? where we will go through waste motion their dedication to the service of their Mr. MORSE. I mean that if any party on the floor of the Senate, and add sur- country. violates the treaty, any other party to the plusage to the preamble of a treaty res- I am only concerned with the facts treaty that wants to engage in nuclear olution, merely to placate someone. and opinions they presented, and I find testing and consider the treaty dead is This treaty should stand on its own the tremendous preponderance of fact not bound by it. feet. It should not be modified one iota. and of expert opinion in support of the Mr. FULBRIGHT. Let us suppose the We know what our Constitution says treaty. Indeed, this is true in the mils- country of Burma decides to wiithdraw, and means about ratification of treaties. terry and scientific fields as well as the under article IV, as distinct from violat- We know how much a President can do political field, despite all the concentra- ing the treaty. Does the Senator believe with or without a treaty in fixing the tion upon issues of the antimissile mis- we are relieved of any obligations under policy of the United States in nuclear sile and the high yield nuclear bombs. their ate without . going althrough-- weapons. It adds nothing to spell out So I shall vote for this treaty with only Mr. FOLSE.IGHT. I wanted to be our ratification process, and I am sure the reservation that it does not go far that doing so will not even gain the sup- enough. I would like to see it include sure- port No. If Russia or Great port of any Senator who makes this point more far-reaching and significant meas-Mr. against its ratification. They will still ures. But I shall vote for it if for no Britain or the United States violated, the vote against it. other reason than that it tries to reduce treaty, the other parties would be free at This brings me to the question of what, the pollution of the atmosphere, and once to follow whatever their national in- If anything, will come after it. that is an objective the United States teresb, dictated. I hope something will come after it. has pursued under administrations of Mr. FULBRIGHT. There is angither What does come may not come in the both parties. It is the objective of the question which has intrigued me, and form of a treaty. Just as we could sus- resolution introduced in this body by which I had not thought of. At page 8 pend further underground testing with- the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. of his text the Senator refers to the out a treaty or an amendment to the Donn], of which I was pleased to be one rents euphoria the t whic some of the the mio- current one, so could we probably take of the cosponsors. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 63 'Approved For Release 2004/03%1 T 'tIA=RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGR F.c.c rnXT A T Oil-4 t11 Z 16491 tart' opponents, rely so heavily. As I read the testimony before those sessions Whether this is true or not, I would not see it, that is essentially a political ques- of the committees which I was unable to t ion; is that not true? attend; to study a volume of materials- say. In any case, it is the quality and Mr. MORSE. Of course it is. They both top secret and unclassified-bearin not the quantity of the testimony, it is are, ot~t,d jhpir field in that respect. g the quality and not the number of wit-Oil vaGaspects of the treaty; an Mr. E1ILBRIGHT. How the Joint read most of the rather sizable corre nesses that matters. Chiefs of .Staff or any other military spondence I have received on the ques- men are (Q]npetent to judge the euphoria tion of ratification. THE MOLDING OF PUBLIC OPINION Which might overtake Congress or the I I regret to point out that calculated otee country is not quite a reasonable inter- knowledge have also called experience as a member efforts have been made b the some e a e ount ion, it seems to me. I do not of the active Air Force Reserve, with over favoring ratification of the treaty to r csubscribe, to, that theory. rati tificially cat mold public opinion in favv or of sc j to that Neither do I. 26 years' serice, including the faculty ratification. These efforts have a Mr. F[JI 1;2,IGHT. I am of the Army Command and General Staff ently succeeded, for I note fromthe e and Senator has Poi HT out thatl thist is China-Bur aeIven Thea erslof Opethe Harris Survey front y poll which appeared be essentially a political matter. I thank tions during of a local newspaper on Senator EPo very finer. t 10 ng World War II, and some M4 to onday the the public is supposed to years' Reserve training at Strategic deep 1 for the treaty. One wondersh how w r. MORSE. I thank the Senator Air Command Headquarters before my hw the isurv nfo m d those and, particularly were ques , Mfor his, comment. I close by extending election to the Senate in 1960. to my President my closet' yoxtendi a When the future security of the United how well sly wee were. those the who question were quere to for_sidengreat t sthta hearty con a has States Wand, in turn, u the free world, stated really You fa. If the question were displayed by his leadership t he has at stake, one does not lightly t' turn assuming tat i favor te test treaty, lion with, yhe treaty. I con con sec- aside an thseur ho f r co not y?"ethat affect tonerwit .I~arriman for the very able any argument of relevant tgood est fao y br be ecurityn ou cothe q ~e that woere work he did. as our head negotiator in well-meanin y stated?"Do you If the question were Moscow in. connection with the treaty. for or against ratification. le Emot nl Dere favor g that it could ad- When it was signed, I said it was a great arguments by sincere persons do with the affect the security for mankind, for it offers mankind attention and deserve consideratio lt ter?",aect the security of our coun- ay fo ortunity, to chan e it try that would b g n , a e another. s course and though they naturally tend to hinder to march -toward a new horizon of per.. rather than to help in arriving at a sound s the r causes of enat a poll are manent peace, posed to cause a Senator to vote for a for a It is up to the people of the world to deRega elate of which way a Member of treaty which he conscientiously believes - the Senate votes, none of us will know to be contrary to the interests of his dli their rl governments rtime n whether n of they a system will for hold world to determine ine governments for the estab- for a Senate time s, whether of not our vote ountry, I think renders a disservice was long wh have done not our best to the p unfortunate that a tionthe United States. manent peace, for there wbe no of per- w correct. If homework, h ve do not let side In this connection, I believe it is most time. I aeaeofor ed t will be be in done other our issues such as bassador Harriman who gave with . our time, or most of mankind will be thinking, if we vote souncconsciences- sr re s act Harriman his instructions with respect to the treaty negotiations failed and I am sure all of us will do so-then to see to it that the treaty provide that until the parties to the negotiation-the I ask uOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President t, Whether we will hit is ave thmade e correct ht dec swlll Bead to n the a moue con en that I from m hsome sleepless hours a the years United States, Great Britain, and the would Iowa [Mr., MILLER], with the under- ahead. Soviet Union-had all ratified the treaty, standing that I do not lose my right to TWO THINGS CERTAIN no other the treaty. As be result this the fling, join in the treaty. As a result of this failure, most of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there when it comes things dedication I am to a just First, that world have, i the otherno ds ib ra- pbTcion? The PRESIDING Or hears none, and when peace, to an end to to arms rand world have, the little treaty-and d uppose it jt ordered tiont of the the ll also rI suppose Mr. so is Mr. President, I thank pact n disarmament ant with that effective i- tofht these s them will also numbered Many among and all the Senator R. Ohio. I suggest the kind can enjocmore of the good m thin - e nations are numbered absence of a quorum. the neutral nations, some denlittle nature of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The policy of freedom over communism, all Communist mperialism and some of clerk will call the roll. Members of the Senate-wheher the condemn The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the vote for or against ratification-are on testing were huite ready to roll. Y the United States when it resumed Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous con- common ground. It would be dishonest and strangely in the silent at on condemnation 1962 sent that the order for the unanimous call thand at unfair because for anyone a Senator to votes say or ratifica- imply Soviet st Russia's breacli the of set tat p Y 1961 following years tf moratorium rescinded. s PRESIDING OFFICER. tion of the treaty, he believes in peace at de 19ful flowing n. of secret and objection, Thit is so ordered. Without any price. And it would be equally un- nations may think tio they avet everything these MILLER. orMr. dered. President, m de- fair and dishonest for anyone to say or to gain from thtreaty and nothingto Mr. cvotes lose, when they itron M whether to vote ids t, my de- against lrat that bec u the treaty, is in ratification of the proposed limited nu- favor of nuclear war and nuclear fallout. the capability of the Urealize that nited States h to clear test ban treaty is the most difficult future security and freedom depends on one I h b faced since t had the honor The second thing of which I am sure deter Communist a of becoming a Member I the he Saar is that this is not a clear-cut decision we is now bei ate. Having been a Member for less that about s to make. nyone who thinks The nt hat inasmuch now being given the than 3 aving I have felt mber f when ratification decision for yheard ears, the have felt obvious, or ratification that or the against evi- other n that as all of these comment reassured from ranee it overwhelming one way or the United other nations have tithed the greof t it I than 3 some have the most senior Members of the United States harmful the the prestige the some Senatq. other, either has proceeded from false rit. If the prestige of the atify if the Senate refused to In arriving at my decision, i have done hPremises omework. or Practically all the evidence ratify this treaty -if it threatens he se- my best to sit in on the various hearings States has fallen so low that failure to which best to were conducted by the has bee opinion evidence rather curity of the United Std will oreign coRelations nducted the Joint CCom- ommittee factual than greama causr been won o Foreign Atomic Energy, in such terms as "may" and irreparable damage to our and the Com- "might," "could or should," I " know y~. that or reputation men ter has a eace-lousa s of our foour mittee on Armed Services, meeting joint- "probably," and the the like.' or after thousands ly, and the hearings of the Preparedness some have made the suggestion and ousands women have given their tgiven theeir lives Subcommittee of the Armed Services there is more evidence on the side of of this country have paid out over $100 Committee, meeting in closed session; to ratification than on the side against It. billion in foreign aid to the less fortu- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA4RDP651300383R000100210008-2 16492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE pate members of the world community, after the United States has poured mil- lions of dollars into the United Nations to keep it alive while the Soviet Union has amassed a delinquency of almost $54 million of the total outstanding delin- quencies of $102 million, then I would say that our friendship with the other nations of the world hangs by a very slender thread. And if the U.S. Senate is supposed to ratify a treaty mainly be- cause it is suggested that to do otherwise would adversely affect world opinion, then the constitutional power to advise and consent has been reduced to an empty gesture. And, I might add, if such a consideration is supposed to tip the scales of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their recommendation regarding a treaty, they have been wrongfully placed in a position unbecoming the top mili- tary leaders and advisers of this country. MY DECISION Some of my brothers have said that the question to be answered is this: "Is this treaty in the national Interest?" But no one really knows whether it is. No one really knows whether or not it is a first step in the right direction. No one really knows whether it is a shaft of light in the darkness or whether we just think we see one. The question to me is more properly this: "Will the failure to ratify this treaty be more harmful to the national interest than will its ratifica- tion?" I have concluded that it will, and I shall therefore vote for ratification. I might add that I may support one or more reservations which may be offered to, the resolution of ratification; but their adoption or refection will not affect My decision to vote for ratification. My reasons for my decision are briefly these, and I shall have more to say about them later: First. I am persuaded that the risks relative to our military power now and in the future are acceptable when coll- sidered in light of the safeguards pre- scribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which the President of the United States has committed himself and his adminis- tration to follow, accompanied by the clean withdrawal provisions set forth in the treaty. Second. Failure to ratify the treaty is more likely to lead to more nuclear test- ing in the atmosphere and more nuclear fallout than will ratification; although it is highly unlikely that in either event will either the United States or the Soviet Union permit themselves or other nations to contaminate the atmosphere beyond scientifically established limits of safety. 'T'hird. Failure to ratify the treaty is more ,likely to lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations than. 'sill ratification. Fourth. Due to faulty negotiation of the treaty in not requiring ratification first by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union before permitting other nations to join, we have been placed in a position as a result of which failure to ratify would cause consider- able embarrassment to the President of the United States before the rest of the world, thus adversely affecting our leadership of the free-world. Fifth. Within reasonable limitations, we have a moral obligation to keep trying for better relations with the Soviet Union in our efforts to secure a just and lasting world peace. There are some disadvantages under the treaty, aside from the military risks which I have termed "acceptable" under the safeguards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are serious and harmful, or at least potentially harmful, to our national interest. But I have concluded that they, are outweighed by the above five considerations. I shall discuss them in fuller detail later, but briefly they are: Fi:rst. Under the safeguards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which have really become a part of the treaty so far as we are concerned, the arms race will be stepped up and so will our costs of national defense-at least insofar as they relate to nuclear testing and weaponry. Second. Peaceful uses of nuclear ex- plosions will be impeded. Third. There is danger that the Amer- ican people will become so hypnotized over the thought that the Communist leaders in the Kremlin sincerely want peace-as. we interpret that word-that they will let down their guard. Fourth. In the face of the Soviet Union's attempt to, install nuclear mis- siles in Cuba, the' Gromyko lie to the President of the United States, Premier lthrushchev's failure to carry out his commitment for onsite inspection In Cuba under United Nations auspices and his further failure to carry out his com- mitment to withdraw all Soviet troops from Cuba, the brazen attempt by the Soviet Union to bankrupt the United Na- tions, continued Soviet-sponsored sub- versive activities In Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, and not one significant deed whatsoever to relieve in- ternational tensions or to indicate any change in a policy of lying, cheating, subversion, and aggression-all occurring after our previous offers to negotiate a treaty similar to this one, our negotia- tion and ratification of this treaty now, represents a policy of accommodation rather than a policy of firmness towards communism. MIIITARY RISKS It would be well to remember that the Joint Chiefs of ;Staff clearly recognized certain military disadvantages under the treaty. These include the permanizing of the Soviet lead in so-called high-yield nuclear weapons, the Soviet lead in in- formation about high-yield weapons effects, Including radiation and blackout effects on communications and missile control systems, the opportunity for the Soviets to catch up to our lead in tactical nuclear weapon technology, and the deprivation of our opportunity to prove the effectiveness of an anti-missile de- fense system which we may develop. With a view to bringing these disadvant- ages to a level of acceptability, they pre- scribed four safeguards as conditions unequivocally necessary to their very cautious approval of the treaty. These conditions are absolute, and they are to continue inde$ntiely into the future un- til such time, at least, as a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, covering under- September 1p ground testing, with completely adequate inspection and control provisions, may be negotiated. The safeguards are as fol- lows: First. The conduct of comprehensive, aggressive, and continuing underground nuclear test programs designed to add to our knowledge and improve our weapons in all areas of significance to our mili- tary posture for the future. Second. The maintenance of modern nuclear laboratory facilities and pro- grams in theoretical and exploratory nuclear technology which will attract, retain and insure the continued applica- tion of our human scientific resources to these programs, on which continued progress in nuclear technology depends. Third. The maintenance of the facili- ties and resources necessary to institute promptly nuclear tests in the atmos- phere, should they be deemed essential to our national security, or should the treaty or any of its terms be abrogated by the Soviet Union. Fourth. The improvement of our cap- ability, within feasible and practical limits, to monitor the terms of the treaty, to detect violations, and to maintain our knowledge of Sino-Soviet nuclear ac- tivity, capabilities, and achievements. In his letter, dated September 10, 1963, to Senators MANSFIELD and DIak;SEN, the President of the United States committed himself and his administration to the "unqualified" and "unequivocal." fulfill- ment of these safeguards. T'here is some question about whether these safe- guards can, indeed, be met, for one must recall the President's speech of March 2, 1962, announcing resumption of nu- clear testing, when he said: We must test in the atmosphere to permit the development of those more advanced concepts and more effective, efficient weap- ons which, in the light of Soviet tests, are deemed essential to our security. Nuclear weapon technology is still a constantly changing field. If our weapons are to be more secure, more flexible in their use and more selective in their impact-i.f we are to be alert to new breakthroughs, to experiment with new designs-if we are to maintain our scientific momentum and leadership- then our weapons progress must not be limited to theory or to the confines of labor- atories and eaves. This point was raised at the Presi- dent's news conference on September 13, 1963; and he was asked what had hap- pened since March 2, 1962, to change his mind about this. His response was, I believe that what I was talking about; then was a comprehensive test ban treaty, But he was not. He was talking about the massive Soviet tests in the atmos- phere, following their breach of the moratorium, and he was justifying our resumption of testing in the atmosphere. Note the statement, "We must test in the atmosphere" which I Just quoted. And this statement was preceded earlier by the following statement: The fact of the matter is that we cannot make similar strides Ito those of the Soviets] without testing in the atrnosplzere as well as underground. For in many areas of nuclear weapons research we have reached the point where our progress is stifled without experi- ments in every environment. Approved For Release 2004/03/1 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 t JfJIUV U fur rCCJedbe LVU4JVJ/ ii 1.oF -rCur0 7DUUJOJJWuu iuuc ruuu~-c CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16493 So the President has not yet answered treaty from other knowledgeable people speech in June at American University, the very timely question put to him by is also opinion. In my Judgment, it is of said: a member of the press; and until he just as high quality as the opinion evi- >: now declare that the United States does does, I am sure, many will wonder how dence on the other side-possibly even not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the well the safeguards of the Joint Chiefs superior to it. However, I am persuaded atmosphere so long as other states do not will be mpt, Only time will tell; and, in that fulfillment of the safeguards pre- do so. We will not be the first to resume. any event, the withdrawal provision of scribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ould the treaty ultimately provides an "out." coupled with the treaty's withdrawal wasleu I~'cleatedewith ith the thatthis Join t t Chiefs commitment I think it appropriate to point out that provision, keeps these military disadvan- Staff, , w egress is valuable testimony was provided against tages and risks at an acceptable level. , but, any which event, it continue the treaty by some of our oustanding Let me. say a word about the treaty's our present policy which would continue military leaders, such as Gen if the treaty is not ratified S Thomas withdrawal ro i i , p v s o proponents on Article IVf th . oe. Power, commander.of the Strategic Air treaty provides that each party shall in of the treaty can hardly argue that if the treaty Uni Command; Gen. Bernard Schriever, exercising its national sovereignty have is going is to cause c ratified the cleard States commander of the Air Force Systems the right to withdraw from the treaty Is is tt that t more nuclear fbeloue Command; Adm. Arthur W. Radford, if it decides that extraordinary events, ' It is true that the Soviets might be the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of related to the subject matter of this first to resume, but they will resume with Staff; Gen. Nathan Twining, former treaty, have jeopardized the supreme in- think without a theeir r y, adv vat and if they Chairman of theJpint Chiefs of Staff; terests of its country. It will not be easy think it to t hantage toe this do so. and Admiral Straus,former Chairman for the United States to exercise this The Secretary of State has made this of the Atomic Energy Commission. They prerogative. People who have been abundantly clear. errned far as they a are ee and wore reinforced by such outstanding and seized with the debilitating disease of Red China are conce, they ar any- thoroughly knowledgeable scientists as euphoria will talk about world opinion, ing nothing to do with the treaty ny- Dr,.J'ohn S., oster,Director of-the Law- It will take a courageous President and how, so their eventual testing in the fence Rac iatiori Laboratory, Livermore, a courageous Congress to do what must a*rtiosphere will very likely occur any- ,CtAiif. ; and Dr. Edward Teller, whose be done. how. If it does, it would be highly un- wisdom aFld courage to stand practically NUCLEAR FALLOUT likely that they would cause any more alone gained for. him the name "father To put this point in fallout than did our tests in 1962, with perspective, one of the H-bomb, The noted aeronauti- should recall the words of the President inorespe a would ct to which the President dearly be no cal consultant, Alexander P. deSeversky, at the time he directed the resumption Prospect of other nations engaging ganger. at- h also testified. in opposition to the treaty. of testing in the atmosphere in 1962. mosphstin n the orese in - I may, add that _ most of Dr. Teller's He said : able tune is tic testing in the foresee fu- splendid testrimoriv and powerful logic It has been estimated, in fact, that the ture is small, and to a degree greater were eoziflne'd to the h eld of nuclear sci- exposure due to radioactivity from these that than it our is our m 1962 inute. I would , it must once and nuclear weaponry, in which he tests will be less than one-fiftieth of the .Nevertheless, it must has no pegr--and net, as some treaty difference which can be experienced, due to be concluded that ratification of the proponent erroneously say, to the field variations in natural radioactivity, simply treaty will have a tendency to prevent of tnen ? l neo erroneously In this the eld by living in different locations in this coun- fallout more than failure to ratify. And of n, I believe the potic , Ins this the able try. This will obviously be well within the this being so, I am persuaded that an tiot by guides for general population health and area of .mutuality between the United Chairman of the Preparedness Subcom- safety, as set by the Federal Radiation Coun- States and the_Soylet Union exists. Let inittee was extremely well taken:, cii. " it be made clear, however, that the If the proponents of the treaty would political Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of United States need be no more concerned count Dr. Teller's testimony In the the Atomic Energy about the problem of fallout than the So- field, why should not the testimony of the falssion, stated Joint Chiefs of Staff in the political field be that he did not rate the the fallout problem viet Union. discounted, too? as, great as some of the other reasons A comparison might be made to the Mr. SIMPON. Mr. President, will for the test ban. He stated that he situation of water pollution of a river the Senatorfrom Iowa yield? knew of no particular case of leukemia between two States. The water, as most the MILLER. or bone cancer or things of that kind or drinking water is, may be polluted to a Mr. SIM pNI Will glad the to Seyield. nator mutation which could be scientifically degree far below a point endangering the from Iowa advise , Will whether he wen t r attributed to worldwide fallout, and men- public in each State. Nevertheless, there me ad- tioned only "one or two freak cases of would be a mutual interest on the part of dress imsself to the shalprose ?r local fallout." He acknowledged that the people of these States to undertake shMtly. ER. y th genetists that their best estima e most skilled scientific evidence of not to pollute the river further, particu- Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator. of the numbers of cases of leukemia and t the orly of ramifntific icat on of wa with pollution respect water pollution Mr. MILLER, Mr. President, we bone cancer caused by natural radia- w clearly established. should add to the conclusions. I have al- tion-not by man-made radiation or fall- was not clearly established. Mr. ready listed the conclusions and major out-is, in the case of leukemia, from the q the question THURNfOND. , will the Sen, on findings of the Preparedness Subcommit- zero to 84,000 cases and, in the case of of fallout, will the Senator tee ; yield? from zero cases; 1. From the evidence we are compelled to a detha the zero means they still can- Mr. MILLER. I am more than happy conclude that serious-perhaps even formid- not trace. even one case. With reference to yield to the Senator from South Caro- able-military and technical disadvantages to such reputed hot spots as Utah, he in- lina. THURMOND. to the United States will flow from the rati- dicated that he would not use the word brou our. ght out t out some v The Senator has information fication of the treaty. At the very least it "danger" to describe the amount of con- at lack of danger efrom fallout will prevent the United States from provid- indicaten il our vent t forget with the from quad- centration of radioactivity. I wonder if I overlooked his statement, ity of weapons of which our science and Nevertheless, in view of t4he present or whether he brought out the testimony technology is capable. state of our scientific knowledge on fall- of Dr. Foster. I do not recall that he 2. Any military and technical advantages out, I do not believe anyone would ques- did. which we will derive from the treaty do not, tion the desirability of minimizing it or Mr. MILLER. No. The Senator from in our judgment, counterbalance or out- eliminating it entirely. Dr. Teller em- Iowa did not allude to the testimony of weigh the military and technical disadvan- phasized that we should try to limit Dr. Foster. If the Senator from South tages. The Soviets will not be similarly in- radioactivity in the air-preferably by Carolina deems it material, I should be hibited wea where win those adeemreas ofn u learin erponry an international agreement which could more than happy to have him point it now to be drawn This is powerful evidence, Mr. Presi- for military and peaceful applications. ouMr. THURMOND, I call attention to dent, and it has not been refuted. It Failure to ratify this particular treaty, the testimony of Dr. Foster, which ap- could not be refuted, because it repre- of course, does not mean that our air is pears on pages 632 and 633 of the hear- sents opinion evidence, and the evidence going to be polluted by nuclear fallout.- ings before the Committee on Foreign in opposition to it and in favor of the The President, in his commencement Relations. At that point I propounded Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00'383R000100210008-2 16494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 some questions to Dr. Foster on that subject: RADIATION FROM NATURAL BACaGROUND senator THURMOND. Dr. Foster, on the question of the fallout to which Senator BYRD referred to a few moments ago, that seems to be the question that is disturbing a great many people today who tend to favor the treaty where otherwise they might be against it. On this question, if I recall correctly, last week or the week before some scientists made the statement that one would get more radiation from living in the mountains of Colorado than from fallout. Dr. FOSTER. That is correct, sir. Senator THURMOND. That is correct. I believe it is also true that one living in a brick house would get 20 times more radia- tion than he would get from fallout. Dr. FosrER. Well, sir, there you are ahead of tue. I do not know that because- Senator THURMOND. Mr. Earl Voss, I be- lieve, brought that out in his book "Nuclear Ambush." Dr. FosTER. Yes. Senator THURMOND. And one wearing a Wristwatch with a luminous dial, as I have on here, would get 10 times as much radia- tion as he would get from fallout. Dr. POSTER. I am familiar with the argu- ments, sir. I do not know that a wrist- watch- Senator THURMOND. Does that sound rea- sonable? In other words, do those state- ments sound reasonable to you? Dr. FosTER. It is true that natural back- ground is large compared with the additional activity, radioactivity, associated with fall- out from all past tests. -Senator THURMOND. Isn't It a matter of fact that the fallout mentioned by some of those who favor this treaty, the propaganda that is being disseminated and the bugaboo that is being raised, that the fallout is im- perceptible, and is of little consequence? Dr. Fos'r a. I think, sir, that the problem or the question of fallout is of insignificance, of little significance, compared to the major issue with which the development of war- heads is attempting to deal. Senator THURMOND. What people want to know is this: We have been. reading about fallout, fallout in milk, and fallout in food End resulting Injury to the future genera- tion. Is it possible for this fallout to bring kbout sterility and various other reactions? I just want to ask you whether you feel that there Is danger to people's health from belittle fallout radiation resulting from the tests We have conducted? Br. FosTea. No, sir. Senator'THUassoND. Your answer is "No"? Dr. FosTEn. My answer is "No." Senator THURMOND. Thank you. I call that to the distinguished Sen- ator's attention because it is on a subject on which he has elaborated and brought but valuable information. I observe these words in the report of the Foreign Relations Committee: It is generally agreed that radiation from fallout amounts to considerably less In terms of"human exposure-than normal background radiation. Moreover, informed opinion ap- pears to be that the radioactive fallout pro- duced to data has remained well below a level at which It might be deemed hazardous. There has been much talk about fear of fallout. I felt that the public ought to know the facts about it. I commend the Senator for bringing out the infor- mation he has given the Senate. I add the additional information. I wish the public to know that the danger of fallout is so minimal and insig- nificant, as stated by Dr. Foster, as to be little detrimental from the standpoint of health, so as to fade into insignificance when compared with the great purpose of keeping this country prepared. As the Senator knows, since he is a distinguished officer in the Air Force Re- serve, the only language the Communists understand is power. It will be power which will preserve and protect this country. In my judgment, we must continue the tests. I believe the tenor of the Senator's speech is that many questions are still unanswered. I believe the Senator is not satisfied with everything. I can readily understand why. he is not, be- cause we know the Communists are ahead of us in high-yield weapons, and we know they are ahead of us in the development of an anti-ballistic-missile system. We know we cannot catch up with them or become superior to -them in these fields unless we test in the atmos- phere. That is the only way we can ever definitely know, because no weapon can be used with assurance by anyone until it has been tested in the environ- merit in which it must function. We can test underground. We can make gains with underground testing. We can possibly make some accomplish- ments underground: But we shall never be able to be assured that a weapon will function properly and do what we expect it to do until it is tested in the environ- ment in which it must function. I am sure the Senator agrees with that, Mr. MILLER. I thank the distin- guished Senator from South Carolina for his comments. In the light of past scientific evidence, which is available, I find it inconceivable that the President of the United States would have directed the resumption of nuclear testing in the atmosphere in 1962 without being able to conclude that the fallout resulting from the tests would be far below the danger point, as he pointed out in the statement which I have quoted from his speech. Mr. THURMOND. The distinguished Senator quoted from the President's statement. Was that the statement of March 2, 1962? Mr. MILLER. The Senator is correct. Mr. THURMOND. That statement indicated that there was little, if any, danger from fallout. That was the ef- fect of the statement, as I construed it. Is that the ' manner in which the Senator construed it? Mr. MILLER. That is correct. It amounted to about one-fiftieth of the difference in radiation we might expect from moving around from one part of the country to another. I cannot conceive of any President de- luding the people by making a state- ment like that if he had scientific knowl- edge that danger would be involved. This does not mean, of course, that as time goes on there may not be an accumulation of radioactive fallout re- sulting from continued testing. It does not mean that there may not be some pockets of fallout--some "local nuclear fallout," in the term used by Dr. Sea- ?borg-which may have serious effects. This is recognized. I pointed it out. It is well to put the argument of the proponents of the treaty into proper perspective. I granted it a plus in my analysis of the treaty; I find other points in favor of the treaty of much greater persuasion. Mr. THURMOND. As the debate has proceeded I have been impressed by the fact that some who originally stressed the fallout question as the big danger or the- "big bear," so to speak, are now beginning to see that this factor prac- tically fades into insignificance. Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLER. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. I know the Senator from South Carolina has correctly quoted a portion of the report of the able Com- mittee on Foreign Relations ending with the conclusion: It is generally agreed that radiation from fallout amounts to considerably less In terms of human exposure than normal background radiation. Moreover, informed opinion ap- pears to be that the radioactive fallout pro- duced to date has remained well below a level at which it might be deemed hazardous. I also know that we do not expect through the action contemplated to di- minish the radiation already in the at- mosphere. I know that many people are greatly concerned about increasing the amount of radiation. I am glad the dis- tinguished Senator from Iowa has re- ferred already to what might occur from increased testing, which has caused deep concern. I should like to read some further lan- guage from the report of the Foreign Re- lations Committee which immediately follows the quotation read into the RECORD by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. But it is also clear, as the Chief of the Division of Radiological Health of the U.S. Public Health Service said in June of this year: "Fundamental is the hypothesis that any amount of radiation exposure involves some risk in exposed population groups." Geneticists have shown greater and more specific concern. It is feared that continued, or stepped up, atmospheric nuclear testing would increase the damage, genetic and Otherwise induced by increased exposure by population groups to radiation. The treaty, in halting the re- lease into the atmosphere of radioactive fall- out, offers a distinct benefit. The Senator from Florida knows something of the wrestling of conscience and mind through which the Senator from Iowa has gone. The Senator from Florida has shared that wrestling. As a matter of fact, he has had the pleas- ure of conferring with the Senator from Iowa, He knows that both of us have been trying to find what course offers the greatest advantage to our country in this situation. It seems to me that the fact that the Russians exploded 71 of these bombs in the late 1961 and early 1962 period, and that many of those bombs were much greater in size than anything we had ever exploded in the atmosphere, and that those bombs were known to be dirty-that is, to carry a very much greater menace from the standpoint of Approved For Release 2004/03/111: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved for Release 2004/03/'F1 :rCIA-RQP65 0383RQ001002100G8=2 i 1s eng s0, am persuaded that cates rather. conclusively that we can- in fact exist or do not exist. I want to an area of mutuality between the United talk about that a lot more, because talking not, in considering this matter, regard about the effects of various doses of radia- States and the Soviet Union exists. our oW% preferred "moderation, in test- tion leads us immediately into an interest- Again, let it be made clear that the ing as.te sole amount of testing which ing field of research which should be im- United States need be no more con- would ez}SUe halt wqre not called. portant for all of us. Elie plain fact is that cerned about proliferation of nuclaa.r tau.vacw,vei uuu4 t,1144 wouignave peen servatiion, or Irom stiatiistics, orrrom any the proliferation of nuclear weapons. the, case if they had been Olean-indi- valid theory whether the claimed damages And th' b I X 963 CONQKESSIONAL i,E.CORD - SENATE not the SSena or from Iowa believe that We have heard that fallout produces a E PR sIDENT no are Confronted With this reality that terrific genetic burden. To begin with, Due to what I would charitably term radiation from fallout is only 1 percent of "faulty" negotiation, the U.S. Senate has the Russians,dp,haveth the sag e filling the radiation which we are getting anyway. been placed in a position of being pres- ness to test in great amounts,J.a the at- Fallout is not dangerous. But the fallout sured to vote for the treaty to save the mosphere, or to test with other than scare is. Many people know that a medical President of the United States from the clean 'bombs in the atmosphere that we X-ray gives you 100 times as great a dose embarrassment he would suffer in the recognize and insist upon in the testing as fallout will give you in your whole life- eyes of the world should the treaty be conducted by our own country? time. How many people have been scared Mr, MILLER. In answer to the ques- away from X-rays? How many people have rejected. Regardless of party, no one tion by the distinguished Senator from gone with their ailments unrecognized and should wish to see this happen. He is 1~ lorida, let me say that his very untreated, only because there has been this the leader of the free world. His pres- y persua- needless and exaggerated fallout scare? I tige-at least in international affairs- sive statement earlier in the debate last don't know. I don't know whether anybody falls naturally upon our country; just week on this , very point is. one of the .has been, killed. by fallout, but I am sure as his loss of prestige would also fall points which Convinced me on this very that many have been killed by the fallout upon our country. Unless security risks subject. The -,Senator from, Florida scare. are unacceptable, we should not permit pointed out the possible mutuality of in- In the hearings Dr. Foster testified this to happen. terest between the Soviet Union and the that a man living in the mountains of Nevertheless, I think it would be remiss United' S could exist ,on this Colorado would normally receive more if I did not point out that this unfortu- point. He did it so persuasively that I radiation than he would from fallout- nate situation is largely of the President's put it in my address. I wanted to observe showing the greatly erroneous opinion own making. Although article II, sec- that this was ,not my original thinking, that has been circulated about fallout, tion 2, of the Constitution of the United 1 derived this beneficial approach to the which has produced a great scare on the States provides that the President shall problem from the Senator from Florida. part of some people. have the power to make treaties, it I. thoroughly agree with the observa- Naturally, we are all concerned about clearly provides that this shall be "by tion, However, I think I should empha- fallout and, everything that affects the and with the advice and consent of the size that the mere failure to. ratify the health of our people; but there is no Senate." Although there was some in- treaty would not necessarily lead to more evidence to support the judgment that formal discussion with some of the mem- testing in the atmosphere, because, as I some have claimed in the fallout field, bers of the Senate Foreign Relations pointed out, the policy of the President of as shown by what Dr. Teller said, and Committee about the proposed treaty, the United I. States, as announced at as shown by what Dr. Seaborg said in the committee's report does not indicate 'American University early in June, is response to a question from the Sena- that a consensus of the members was still the policy of our country, namely, tor from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], which obtained. There is no indication that that we are not going to be the first to I believe the distinguished Senator from our representatives in the negotiations resume-esting. j f the Soviet Union de- Iowa brought out in his address, made any effort at all to persuade Pre- cides to, test in the atmosphere, it will do Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator mier Khrushchev to live up to his whet~ler there is a treaty or not. But from South Carolina. I am not denying promise of removing Soviet troops from there Is. a mutuality of interest which the sincerity or conscientiousness of Cuba or to follow through on his agree- Can exist;in.this area, and I think it is a those who have indulged in a great deal ment to permit on-site inspection of `plus in favor of ratification, of pessimistic talk about fallout. Some Cuba under United Nations auspices-as Mr. HOLLAND. I agree completely of our own colleagues in the Senate have a prelude to signing of the treaty. And with the statement of the distinguished made extensive statements along these yet, when the Senator from Arizona Senator, I think there is a reasonable lines. I am not denying their sincerity, [Mr. GOLDWATER] offers a reservation to prospect that the Russians will have but I believe they are overemphasizing condition the effective date of the treaty somewhat,theoame regard for- their chit something without any scientific data to on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from dren of this, generation and children yet support such an argument at this time. Cuba, he is met with the argument that to be born that wp have for children. In PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS this should have been taken care of dur- this one field, and, perhaps in others, Under the treaty, there is nothing to ing at a mu ing the negotiations. there is some real opportunity erdoess prevent any of the parties from assist- Furthermore, at the preliminary sign- -notexist exist in many mutuality of of interest other nterest st fields. that that That doe is ing any other nation, in underground ing of the treaty in Moscow, there were one of thg cozi}pelling arguments which testing. If, for example, the Soviet widespread reports about Mr. Khru- has persuaded mg to feel that our Na Union and Red China should settle their shchev's expectation that the next step tion caln, with safety and in good con- apparent differences, the Soviet Union would be a nonaggression pact between science, ratify.the treaty. bould not only assist Red China in un- NATO- and the Warsaw Pact countries; I thank the distinguished Senator from derground testing but transfer nuclear but as far as withdrawal of Soviet troops Iowa for yielding to me. weapons to Red China. The mere trans- from Cuba and on-site inspection in Mr, MILL I E I R. I thank the Senator for fer of nuclear weapons which, of course, Cuba, both previously promised by Pre- his comments, would supposedly never be used except in mier Khrushchev, our representatives Mr. meats OND, Mr. President, will self-defense, is not prohibited by the stood mute. the Senator yield? treaty. Moreover, since neither France If the failure to negotiate a provision Mr. the S MILLER. I yield. nor Red China will have anything to do requiring ratification of the United Mr. tUORMO&D, Naturally, we all with the treaty and are clearly pointed States, Great Britain, and the Soviet have concern about fallout, We wish to to developing their own nuclear capa- Union first before permitting other na- no undue bic in this connection. I bility, it is obvious that the treaty will tions to join was due to oversight,' it should ake ake n like, however, to quote at this time not prevent the proliferation of nuclear might well have been avoided if more t a 'very e, statement by Dr. weapons, effort to obtain the advice of the Senate Teller. This is jvhat he skid: Nevertheless, by preventing testing in had been sought. Not having sought it, This argument, while it sounds silple and the atmosphere and thus forcing nu- matters are not made any easier now by plausible, is wrong. Fallout has so small clear development through more expen- suggestions of , some administration an effect that nobody ever has observed it. live underground testing in other coun- spokesmen that "with all the other na- An41 nobody knows either from direct ob- tries, the treaty will tend to "retard" tions having joined in, signing the agree- pheric,,tests !Ust referred,to-by me, does doses of radiation. EMBARRASSMENT TO TII Approved For Release 2004/03/1.1 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16496 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 ment," the Senate must ratify the treaty tiator; and that being the case, if the or the United States will suffer a loss of President is to be embarrassed, let him face. The unfortunate failure to seek be embarrassed. more advice of the Senate is thus com- I do not believe a Senator should act pounded by reducing the Senate's con- that way. As I say, It is a difficult sent to one of bailing out the executive matter to view objectively. We have a branch of the Government from an em- bad situation, and I believe that, absent barrassing situation. This is not the undue risks, we should do something only argument In favor of ratification about it. of the treaty, of course, but I do not I recognize that the able Senator from believe the foundation should ever have South Carolina, differs with me with beenlaid for it. Now that the situation respect to the acceptability or nonac- is as it is, itbecomes an important con- ceptability of the military risks. How- sideration which is most difficult to view ever, if one can conscientiously arrive objectively. at a conclusion that our military secu- In the negotiation of any future rity is not to be unduly risked, the bail- treaties or amendments to this particu- ing out of the President from an em- lar treaty, I trust that this situation will barrassing situation is something which, never be repeated. regardless of party, we ought to attempt Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will to do. the Senator yield? Mr. THURMOND. Is it not a fact Mr. MILLER. I yield. that some of the very countries to which Mr. THURMOND. The point has been we have granted foreign aid, either raised about the impression over the through grants or loans, or in some world, and the loss of face that we would other way, have severely criticized some suffer in other nations of the world. of our actions? Does not the Senator feel that sometimes Mr. MILLER. Indeed it is. It is also we go too far in taking action in this true that I have been making the point country, because we feel we might not for some time that most of the nations make the best impression on other coun- which have joined on the treaty are t t th bh plus interest. Yet some of those corm- tries are willing to jump down our throats at the least provocation. It seems to me that the most im- portant thing we could do for the free world, and even for other countries, would be to keep so strong that we would not be attacked, because the United States is the only nation that stands be- tween communism and the free world. We should remain so powerful that there will not be a temptation to attack the United States. By doing so, we stand our best chance, I believe the Senator from Iowa will agree, to avoid a war--an allout nuclear war-in which there would really be radioactive fallout in addition to the destruction of millions of lives. Mr. MILLER. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. As I stated earlier, some of the nations which have joined in the treaty would be the first to suffer if the United. States were unable to main- tain its deterrent posture with respect to Communist aggression. Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator from Iowa. Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. A MORAL OBLIGATION TO KEEP TRYING tries of the world? delinquent in their o ga Ions o Mr. President, I come now to my :final. Should we not do what is right for our United Nations. reason for rching my decision, that is, people? Is not our first obligation to our The United Nations is now in debt to r moral reaching obligation to keep trying. people and to our country? Should we the extent of about $1.11`1 million. It is the not do that, instead of always wondering faced with bankruptcy. More than 2 Once the hurdle of acceptability of what impression we will make on Com- years ago I pointed out that the day military risks is cleared, the one really munist nations and so-called neutralist was coining when this would become the compelling reason to vote for ratification nations, a great many of which are pro- toughest problem before th3 United Na- was advanced by the Secretary of State Red, to say the least? tions, That is what it was called last when he said: Mr. MILLER. I have had the uneasy fall. The United Nations still has not We should never reach the point of giving feeling for a number of years, increas- solved the problem, and it will not solve u etrving to work out better relations with ingly so In recent years, that there has it unless a majority of the members of been a tendency to talk too much about the United Nations face their obligation I recognize the feeling of frustration world opinion when a subject relates to of paying up what they owe to the U.N. when people write to me and say: the security of the United States. The Soviet Union, owing $54 million, is Senator, after all the United States has The Senator from Iowa felt very much the worst deadbeat of them all. done to try to develop better relations with reassured when the President of the Nations which are not willing to pay the Soviet Union, and after all the soviet United States, on March 2, 1962, an- their obligations, some of them trifling, Union has done to undercut us with their nounced the resumption of testing in- the have received foreign aid from the lies, their cheating, their subversion, their atmosphere. This was not an easy deci- United States to the extent of millions aggression, their creation of international sion to reach. The Senator from South of dollars in excess of what they owe tensions, why should we do anything more? Carolina will recall that immediately the United Nations, and I am sure they Let them make the first step now-and we would be the first to say what a terrible mean a first step in deeds, not just words on there were outcries from some of the thing it was for the President to nego- a piece of paper. so-called neutral nations, about the U.S. That is difficult to answer. Indeed, resumption of atmospheric testing, al- tiate this treaty and then not follow though they were very quiet about the through and deliver on it. they may have the answer, because their Soviet breach of the moratorium in 1961. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact approach-to demand some meaningful Mr. THURMOND. They had practi- of life. We should try to encourage first step on the part of the Soviets cally nothing to say. more nations, particularly those which first-may well be the surest way to Mr. MILLER. That is correct. I am have been the recipients of our people's achieving better relations with them. In quite sure that some people in this coun- tax money, to take a more realistic view any event, the only answer that can try brought heavy pressure to bear upon of these activities and conduct them- properly be given to the argument of the the President of the United States to selves as friends in deeds rather than Secretary of State is one of timing--pos- cause him not to resume testing. Fortu- as friends in words. But the situation sibly requiring some meaningful first step nately, wiser counsel prevailed; and I am being as it is, I would feel bad if any by the Soviets to indicate a measureable quite sure that he was persuaded that we President were to suffer great embar- change in policy. Inasmuch as the pre- had to resume testing to preserve our na- rassment. -I am persuaded that that is amble to the treaty recites that the three tional security. what would happen under the situation major parties, including the Soviet 'There still seems to be too much atten- that; now exists. Union, proclaim as their principal aim an tion being paid to world opinion. The Mr. THURMOND. I feel that the able agreement on general and complete dis- fact that some of the proponents of the Senator from Iowa would have more re- armament under strict international treaty have emphasized this so much, spect for some of those countries if they control "in accordance with the objec- after the faulty negotiation of the treaty, did not call upon us for aid and would tives of the United Nations," it would makes it extremely difficult for the Sena- pay their dues to the'-United Nations, seem that a reasonable first step for tor from Iowa to view this point objec- In the past, the United States has the Soviets to take to reassure us of their tively. granted aid to 104 of the 112 nations. change in policy would be to pay up their If we were not concerned about the Even now, for fiscal year 1964, we have some $54: million in delinquencies to the seriousness of this problem, It would be requests to grant aid to 100 of the 112 United Nations. easy to be tempted to say that the Presi- countries. Since World War IF, the it would be tragically unfair for any- dent's negotiator in Moscow made a United States has granted aid to other one-outside the Senate or in the Sen- blunder, that he was careless as a nego- countries to the extent of $121 billion ate-to condemn a Member of the Sen- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Or rcelease LUU41Ual I I : lo11A-MLJr0Z)6uus0sl`000II I VOL I uuuo-c CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ate for insisting on some meaningful, first step by the Soviets as a condition precedent to the treaty's effectiveness, just because that Senator felt that some- thing more was required to evidence good faith than,chamnagne and caviar parties, smiles, and bear hugs in Moscow. It can be, answered that- the mutuality of benefits with respect to nuclear fall- out and proliferation of nuclear weap- ons does not necesiar"ly require such a meaningful "first step to evidence good faith on the part of .the Soviets. We stand to benefit, anyhow. It is a fair answer, particularly when coupled with the point of saving ,the Presider t, of the United States from embarrassment. Ac- cordingly, While. I might be inclined to support. a reservation providing_ for a reasonable,. condition precedent to_ .the treaty's effctiveness, the failure of such a reservation's adoption would not cause me to vote, against ratification of, the treaty itself. DISADVANTAGES UNDER IIIE TREATY-A STEPUP IN THE ARMS RACE AND IN COSTS OF NATIONAL It is erroneous to think of the treaty standing by itself. It must be thought of as coupled with the absolute adher- ence to the safeguards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs, of Staff. These will mean an expanded program of expensive un- dergroundtesting which will more than offset the costs of testing in the atmos- phere, in outer space, and underwater, which will be, prohibited. Not being able to obtain more high-yield weap- ons effects information will require addi- tional `.`hardening" of our missile sites to provide for a margin of safety and greater deployment of even more mis- sues to insii,.re an adequate second, strike force against a possible "blackout" and other effects of which we do not possess .adequate knowledge. We will continue to try to develop an effective antimissile defense system, and not to_ expect the Soviets to do so would be foolish indeed. Moreover, the Soviets can be expected to step up their underground testing in an effort to catchup to us in the tactical nuclear weapons field. As Walter Lipp= mann wrote in the August 22 issue of the Washington Post, of course the race of armaments will continue under the treaty. The well-known physicist, Dr. Leo Szilard, testified that if the United States proceeds with an extensive pro- gram of underground bomb testing, then, rather than furthering the cause of peace, the test ban agreement would be likely to do just the opposite. But the United States will proceed with an extensive program of underground nuclear testing, because this is one of the safeguards proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the President has unequivo- cally committed his administration to doing so. There is a great deal of merit in what Dr. Szilard says, and one would be in- vulnerable to fair criticism for voting against ratification for this reason. In any event, a realistic appraisal of the situation makes it clear that a vote for ratification of the treaty, coupled as It is with the safeguards of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is, not a vote for a step down in the nuclear arms race but for a step up In the nuclear arms race and in the costs of national defense. Put there are two answers to this disadvantage un- der the treaty: First, the costs of defense to the Soviets will. increase, too, so that there is some mutuality of disadvantage; and, ? second, this mutual disadvantage may pave the way for Soviet agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty with fully adequate inspection and controls.. PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS WILL BE IMPEDED Our plowshare program holds a great potential for the benefit of mankind. Through the use of nuclear explosives which produce little radioactivity and,by placing them underground so that nearly all of the radioactivity is trapped, proj- ects could be undertaken at a fraction of the cost required by conventional meth- ods. We have been assured that under the treaty we can continue experiments, and, to the extent that detectable amounts of nuclear fallout do not go be- yond our own territorial limits, applica- tion of these experiments to mining, re- covery of oil and gas, water development, and the construction of harbors can be made. However, construction of a sec- ond Panama Canal and other applica- tions which would entail detectable amounts of fallout beyond our own terri- torial limits cannot be undertaken. It is unfortunate that the treaty was not negotiated in such a manner as to permit peaceful uses of nuclear explo- sions-at least to be conducted under an inspection system, involving the three negotiating countries, to permit verifi- cation that, indeed, the. application of nuclear explosions is for peaceful pur- poses. It is to be hoped that an amend- ment along this line will be negotiated later. THE DANGER OF EUPHORIA No matter how powerful our military capability may be, it will be meaningless as a deterrent if our national will to re- sist aggression through the use of this capability is weakened. We are prone to think of the decay of a nation's moral fiber in terms of vice and corruption; but just as deadly to the moral fiber of our people would be a condition of euphoria-a false sense of well-being with respect to Communists, in general, and the Soviet Union, in particular. Nothing would better serve the purposes of the leaders in the Kremlin than to have a substantial number of our well- meaning citizens succumb to the smiles and soothing peace talk of Soviet psy- chological warfare, and become so hyp- notized over the thought that the Com- munist leaders "sincerely" want peace- "peace" as they interpret that word, not as we interpret it; that is to say, the Communists regard ."peace" as a con- dition under which Communist aggres- sion can be continued without undue in- terference-that they will eventually fall into a state of mind which can best be described as "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead." It is highly significant that the Secre- tary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphasized the danger of euphoria, and one member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed the opinion that under the treaty our na- tional will probably will deteriorate. 16497. . There are two answers to this prob- lem: First, it should be. no more of a problem for the people of the United States than for the people of the Soviet Union. Second, the problem actually exists, whether the treaty is ratified or_. not; and although the problem may be accentuated . if the treaty.,is ratified, it will be much more of a problem with respect to "follow-on" amendments. to_ the . treaty or other treaties and relationships with the Soviet Union. We might as well face up to the problem now; and it could be that the treaty, if it serves no other purpose, will serve our national interest by once again focusing public attention on the nature of communism and Soviet imperialism. I believe that administration. spokes- men who favor the treaty should be com- mended for making it clear that the treaty is, at most, only a very small first step toward improved relations with the Soviet Union, and that it is nothing to become wildly excited about. It stands as more of a symbol of hope for im- proved relations. Everyone agrees with its purpose to lay a foundation for im- proved relations; but there are honest differences of opinion over whether these will actually result from the treaty. Ab- sent a concrete example of a change in Soviet intentions, the evidence is over- whelming that communism is not chang- ing and that the Communist leaders in the Kremlin are not throwing off the shackles of their Communist ideology. It would be well never to forget a few hard facts- about communism: First. Communists deny the existence of God, so that their "moral" code is not the same as ours. Unlike us, they believe that might makes right and that the end justifies the means. Second. Communists-whether they live in the Soviet Union, in Red China, in the United States, or anywhere else- are dedicated to achieving one world of communism. Lying, cheating, subver- sion, and war are perfectly proper means to this end. It was a perfectly proper Communist tactic for Mr. Gromyko to lie to the President of the United States last October, when Mr. Gromyko de- clared that only "defensive" weapons were being supplied to Cuba. Third. If and when a nuclear war were decided upon as a proper means to "bury" the United States, the leaders in the Kremlin would not hesitate to engage in a "preemptive"-first strike-war. So- viet military doctrine expresses no scruples over a first strike, if it would be decisive. Our Government recognizes this; and that is why we have a program for "hardening" our missile sites. But the following quotations from "Soviet Military Strategy," by V, D. Sokolovskii, marshal of the Soviet Union-translated by Rand Corp. and published by Pren- tice-Hall, Inc., 1963-ought to be re- membered: Military strategy directs primary atten- tion to the study of how a future war may break out and to a detailed study of the particular features of strategic deployment of the Armed Forces, methods of delivering the first blow and conducting initial opera- tions, and strategic utilization of the differ- ent 'branches of the Armed Forces (p. 91). Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For'Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSI`ONAI. RECORD"--- SENATE September 18 n t obsolete weapons, face of the brazen attempt by the Soviet odern warfare, military strategy has not take into accou As the strategy of missile and nuclear aborts, misses, and .ontargeted targets. Union to bankrupt the United Nations by s Is in depth (p, 93). Administration spok smen who favor the running up a delinquency amounting to In a missile war, the main war aims and treaty have made it dlear that we cannot $54 million-over half of the combined missions will be accomplished by strategic safely diminish our nuclear capability delinquencies before the U.N., and in the missile forces, which will deliver massive relative to that of the Soviet' Union. face of continued Soviet-sponsored sub- will .protect the strikes. * * * The National PVO Nevertheless, the theory of overkill versive activities in Latin America, the the country from enemy y nuclear attacks. * * * The probability of such wars has merit, if placed in proper perspective. Middle East, 'and Africa-then some cannot be completely excluded at the present The danger is that its apparent logic meaningful first step must be made by time (p. 95). refight be used to J tify unilateral dis- the Soviet Union to indicate peaceful The fourth point to remember about armament or the ratification of a com- intentions. communism is that the Red Chinese prehensive test ban treaty without ade- That first step could be the removal openly state that war is inevitable as a quate inspection and controls. The of Soviet troops from Cuba, onsite in- means of achieving one world of com- American people can now sleep soundly spection of Cuba, payment of its del'in- munism over the capitalistic nations. at night, secure in the realization that quencies "before the United Nations, They openly do so. The Soviets openly our military power deters the Soviet Un- adoption of an "open skies" policy such speak of "peaceful coexistence, ' while ion from attack. It has always been as that requested by former President secretly preparing for war. "Masters of this way, and the so-called missile gap Eisenhower, public renunciation of lies deceit" is what J. Edgar Hoover calls the of the 1960 campaign has long since been and villification relating to the inten- Canmunists. proved to have been nonexistent. The tions of the United States which have Small wonder, Mr. President (Mr. real concern, however, is, Will we main- been deliberately fed to the people of NELSON in the chair), that administra- tain our deterrent power in the future? the Soviet Union, who yearn for peace, tion spokesmen for the treaty have Years are required to design, develop, by the Communist leaders in the Krem- warned that the Soviets can be expected and produce weapons systems. It would ' lin, or something similar. If it be said to abrogate the treaty whenever they be foolish and tragic, if not fatal, to let that the Soviet Union would never agree conclude that it is in their interest to euphoria in the form of a misapplied to taking such a first step as a condition do so-just as they did in the case of overkill theory or any other form to precedent to ratification of the treaty, their breach of the moratorium in 1961, persuade the people and the Congress to there are two answers: First, no one but after years of secret preparation for the engage in unwise and premature cuts the leaders in the Kremlin know whether premeditated breach. And the chairman in our national defense budget, or to re- the Soviet Union would take such a first of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that sist the defense budget increases which step. Under the circumstances of this "I believe we can anticipate clandestine will arise in the nuclear weapons and treaty, with the pressures of "worlld opin- testing on the part of the Soviets." Al- technology area by firm adherence to the ion" upon them, it could well be that the though we may hope that the Soviets will safeguards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs Soviet Union would pay up its obliga- change their ways and will adhere to of Staff, tions before the United Nations if this the letter and the spirit'of the treaty, it Finally, let us not be deluded by the were a condition precedent. Second, the would be foolish for our people to let argument that a continuation of the failure to take such a first step would be euphoria blind them to the realities of arms race, which ratification of this highly indicative of the surface nature communism and to the long Soviet rec- treaty will promote, will lead to greater of the protestations of "good faith" by ord of broken treaties and agreements, international tensions. It is the inter- the Soviet Union, such as those with Finland, Estonia, national tensions, caused by the aggres- Instead, we are being urged to follow Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, live policies of Communist imperialism, a policy of accommodation. This policy Rumania, and Czechoslovakia, to name which has brought on the arms race. seems to be to merely react to Commu- only a few. THE POLICY OF CCOMMODATION nist aggression, to do nothing which Another manifestation of euphoria Serious as the other disadvantages un- might rock the boat," so to speak, to would be the assumption that with nu- der the treaty are, to me the most seri- bend over backward to not cause Pre- clear parity will come an end to the our one is that ratification of this treaty, mier Khrushchev to lose his temper and danger of nuclear war. Such an as- in. the absence of even one first step by pound the table with his shoe. It finds sufCnption overlooks the fact that so- the Soviet Union indicating a change in expression in references to the "brink" called parity would be destroyed by a Policy, means following a policy of ac- of nuclear war during the Cuban con- first strike of the Soviets or by Soviet Conimodation in dealing with commu- frontation, although let me say, Mr. development of an effective antimissile nism. For over 25 years I have been President, we were not on any "brink" system, It fails to recognize that, in studying the Communist ideology, and at all. We were ready to go, that is true. reckoning with a first strike, the United I have had the benefit of instruction, ad- But we were not even close to a nuclear States must have far more nuclear weap- vice; and writings from people who have war because Premier Khrushchev was ons than the Soviets in order to retain devoted their lives in this field. Not the not close to committing suicide. parity after a first strike. Those who least of these is Robert Strausz-Hupe, A line seems to be drawn between tak- use the overkill argument, in an effort director of the Foreign Policy Research ing action-such as the blockade of to Persuade us to reduce our nuclear ca- Institute of the University of Pennsyl- Cuba--when there is imminent danger pability, appear to take a conservative vania, who testified that while he favors to our Nation; and inaction evidenced position in estimating that only 10 per- a comprehensive test ban treaty, he is by lifting the Cuban blockade following cent of our bomber fleet and only 25 opposed to ratification of this treaty. I the removal of Soviet missiles-when no percent of our Polaris and Minuteman recognize that there are some differences imminent danger faces our Nation, al- missiles would hit their targets, and that of opinion among the experts, but the though our national honor has been such a force would be more than 200 great weight of opinion is that the best ground under foot by emasculation of times enough to destroy the Soviet if not the only way' to deal with commu- the Monroe Doctrine. I could cite other Union. Surely they do not believe that nis:m is through a policy of firmness, examples, such as our tolerance of the the Soviet Union would engage in a first And a policy of firmness demands that Berlin wall, our failure to follow up on strike on the basis of such an estimate. before undertaking a solemn treaty obli- Premier Khrushchev's promise to have Rather, it would be more realistic to as- gation with the Soviet Union, in the face onsite inspection in Cuba and to with- sump that the Soviets would not make of its attempt to install nuclear missiles draw Soviet troops from Cuba, and the a first strike until they believed they in Cuba last fall,' in the face of the apparent failure to even mention these could prevent almost all, if not all, of Oromyko lie to the President of the points when Premier Khrushchev stated our bombers and missiles' from getting United States, in the face of Premier that he expected to negotiate a nonag- off the ground or reaching their targets. Khrushchev's failure to carry out his gression pact between NATO and the 'Iihe overkill adherents also overlook commitment for on-site Inspection in Warsaw Pact countries as the next step the fact that strategic weapons would Cuba under United Nations auspices, in following the treaty. not be employed in a tactical war and the face of Premie$ Khruschev's further I do not say that the policy of accom- that tactical weapons might well not be failure to carry out his commitment to modation is intended to reflect a "no employed in a strategic war; and they do withdraw Soviet troops from Cuba, in the win" ;policy on the part of those who Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 1, 'advocate it, because the advocates are sidium does not ratify the treaty? The among the first to proclaim our hope chairman of the Senate Foreign Reia- that freedom will come to those who are tions Committee has said that he does now dominated by ideologies which re- not believe there is the slightest doubt ject individual freedom and the self- that the Praesidium will ratify the determination of nations. But because treaty. He further said that, as far as the policy of accommodation results in he was concerned, if the Praesidium munists, because it results in the side of freedom,being on the defensive against the aggressive moves of Communist sub- version and imperialism, it tends to weaken our willingness and desire to win. the cold war. It-tends to erode away the morale of the, dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces, the people ' in the captive nations, and the refugees who seek to reestablish freedom in their native countries, It places an almost unbearable burden of understanding on those in the front..Une of the cold war- the men and their families affected by SAC alert, by maneuvers of our Polaris submarines, by our operations in South Vietnam to name only a few; and the Cuban patriots who seek. to overthrow the bearded Moscow puppet in their homeland. The point is, Mr. President, that the "accommodation" policy has not worked. And the reason it has not worked is that Communists look upon such sufferance as a sign of weakness, which invites fur- ther subversion and aggression, rather .than a sign of the hand of friendship to be grasped. I could be wrong when I say that a policy of firmness is the one to follow, rather than a policy of accommodation, and I hope I am. I do know that when we have followed a policy of firmness- as we did in Berlin and as we .did during the briefly imposed Cuban blockade-it has worked.,. But if a majority of my colleagues in the Senate feel that we should follow a policy of accommodation and ratify the treaty without a meaning- ful first step by the Soviet Union first, then I will go along-with this clear understanding:. I want to see a meaning- ful first step by the Soviet Union, clearly demonstrating a change in policy, before ratifying any amendments to this treaty or any other treaties with the Soviet Union affecting the security of our coun- try. In this connection, let me caution that I do not consider. a proposed ex- change of observers of ground forces, which is being mentioned, or a proposed proclamation of an end to class warfare in the Soviet Union, which will probably be made later on, as a "meaningful first step." I have already indicated exam- ples of what I mean by this, and I speak of a unilateral step by the Soviet Union of that character. CONC1 USION In conclusion, Mr. President, I would make two points: First, the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet has not, as yet, ratified this, treaty, . On September 9, the State Department advised that the treaty has been unanimously endorsed by the Joint Foreign Affairs Committee of the Supreme Soviet, the Council of the Union, and the Council of Nationalities, and was then before the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet, which has the power to, ratify. This naturally raises the question of what will happen if the Prae.- Approved For a 2004/03/11 :CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210b08-2 CO RESSIONAL RECORD - SFNATF next spring, the treaty would be "off." I recognize that the treaty will probably be ratified by the Praesidium, but we do not know this for certain. And if it should not do so sooner than next spring, I agree that the treaty should be "off," but I am not so sure that it will be "off." Once the treaty has been ratified by the U.S. Senate and the document of ratifi- cation deposited with the Soviet Union, it would seem to be "on" unless the Presi- dent recalled it. I think it would be helpful to make sure that the State De- partment not deposit the ratified treaty with the Soivet Union until the Praesid- ium has ratified the treaty and it is on its way over here for deposit with us. Remember, that under Soviet law a treaty' ratified by the Praesidium does not become effective -until it has been. deposited. The second point is that I have de- tected a certain amount of cynicism over what will happen if this treaty is not ratified by the U.S. Senate. We have been told that ratification of this treaty is far better than to have an unlimited arms race extending without relief into the future. The inference, of course, is that if the treaty is not ratified we will, therefore, have an unlimited arms race extending without relief into the future rather than cgntinue to work for a com- prehensive test ban treaty. And the fur- ther inference is that any Senator who dares vote against ratification must be in favor of an unlimited arms race ex- tending without relief into the future. The logic of such an argument com- pletely escapes me. If I were to vote against ratification, I would deeply re- sent it. And inasmuch as I intend to vote for ratification, I am in an even bet- ter position to say that I deeply resent the implication it casts upon those of my colleagues who, with.just as much dedication as any of use possesses to peace, to an pnd in the arms race, and to more of the better things in life for our people which genuine disarmament can bring, cannot conscientiously sup- port ratification. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLER. I yield. Mr. THURMOND.. A portion of the preamble to the treaty reads: Proclaiming as their principal aim the speediest possible achlevemept of an agree- ment on general and complete disarma- ment- And so forth. Of course, the Senator is familiar with that portion of the preamble. ? Secretary Rusk has said that the test ban treaty is only the first step down this road. He made that statement be- fore the Senate -committee March 11, 1963. I believe the President of the United States said that this is the first step. Does the Senator.from,lowa, feel that this is the first step program? 16499 Mr. MILLER. No. I do not believe this is the first step in a disarmament program. I have tried my best to make it clear that the result of this treaty, coupled with the safeguards of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be a step-up in the arms race rather than a stepdown. I fear that most of the proponents of the. treaty have not done their home- work. They are trying to persuade Sen- ators to vote for the treaty on the basis of the argument that it will be a step- down in the arms race. When the budget costs roll around to the Senate next year and the year after and the year after that, because the administra- tion will then be trying to carry out the safeguards of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. those proponents should not come to tell me that they are sorry, that they were wrong. They have had ample time to do their homework on this point. I have concluded that this will not be a first step toward disarmament. At least, that will not be the first result. I recognize that it may have a ten- dency, because of the increased costs of national defense both for the Soviet Union and the United States-because of these mutual disadvantages-to bring the two parties together in an effort to arrive at a comprehensive test ban treaty which will prohibit underground testing under adequate safeguards of inspection and controls. That could be a first step toward disarmament. In other words, the treaty could pro- vide a basis for a first step; but to say that the result of the treaty will be a first step toward disarmament, when the result is going to be an increase in the armaments race, is something I cannot quite reconcile. Mr. THURMOND. Is it the feeling of the Senator from Iowa that this would not be a first step? Is that what the Senator has expressed? I believe it is the position of the Senator that it would not be a first step in disarmament. Mr. MILLER. No. Mr. THURMOND. ator from Iowa want step. Or does the Sell- this to be a first Mr. MILLER. I would like to have the treaty -become a meaningful first step toward relative, genuine, effective, safeguarded disarmament between the United States and the Soviet Union, be- cause I am well persuaded that until the day comes when we can spend more of our national resources on the better things of life for our people rather than for instruments of destruction, we shall not be able to provide the opportunities which I am sure our Maker intended for our people. But that does not appear to be very near. I do not think we ought to try to aggravate the situation. I can under- stand Senators voting against ratifica- tion, on the ground that. the treaty, might step up the arms race. I think that is a disadvantage, but I think it is outweighed by the other points I made for ratification. Mr. THURMOND. So the Senator is not in accord, then, with the interpreta- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383RO00100210008-2 16500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 tion placed upon the treaty by the Presi- disarmament, as he stated before the about disarmament. He made the dent' and the Secretary of State that it Senate committee on March 11, 1963? statement: is a first step?- Mr. MILLER. As I said, I do not want Disarmament primarily means disman- Mr. MILLER. That is a first step to- to get into an argument over the mean- tling the gigantic war machines of the highly ward disarmament? Ing of words. I do not recall whether developed countries, * ? * General disarma- Mr. THURMOND. Yes. the Secretary of State testified that this ment does not mean disarming the peoples Mr. MILLER.. We must not get into treaty's immediate result would be it step trgry, i for would deprive the imperialists of an argument over the meaning of words, down in the arms race-- the means to ha:a progress and crush the but the senator from Iowa cannot see, Mr. THURMOND. No; a first step to- struggle for independence. if nothing more is done, that a year from ward disarmament, I said. So it is clear f ram that statement how now we shall be any nearer disarma- Mr. MILLER. But there are some Mr. Khrulear construes ment mo- ment. The Senator from Iowa believes persons who say the treaty would step Mr. we shall be further away, because the down the arms race; and that, therefore, should like to quote from General arms race will have been stepped up just it is a step toward disarmament. They I s m I know the Sholds could much more. The only way one have arrived at that conclusion consci- Power, and esteem. Senator a said: could justify the argument that this entiously, although, as I have said, I do in high regard, oi He s could be-the use of the word "is" is not think they have done their home- In whhomdn my person desireste peace an all d sensible people from gratuitous-a first step is on the basis work. If one reaches the conclusion in nhis w wad bue there are two different that it could result in better relations that the treaty will be a step down in theories of how to get there. One theory is between the United States and the So- that arms race, he may believe that it through military superiority and through viet Union and, on that basis, perhaps a will be a step toward disarmament. But deterrents, whic his the philosophy of the meaningful agreement regarding de if one reaches the conclusion, as I have, strategy we have used. There is another one facto disarmament could be arrived at. that it will be a step-up in the arms race, through disarmament. I personally think Mr. THURMOND. Does the Senator I do not see how he could say it is a step the two theories are diametrically op- feel the time has now come when the toward disarmament unless he thinks it posed- Communist leaders are evolving into will provide for better relations between Says General Power- peaceful people, that. we can trust them, the two nations that will result in :reach- I do not see how you can arm and dis- and that relations will be improved be- ing other meaningful agreements pro- arm at the same time. I have studied pre- cause of the treaty? viding for a step toward disarmament. vious disarmament measures, and in my Mr. MILLER. No; the Senator from Mr. THURMOND.- In view of the pre- opinion disarmament is a proven concept Iowa does not believe so. To be fair, I amble to the treaty, which states it is a to get you into it war. I think history will believe that some of the administration's step toward general and complete dis- prove that the surest way to cause a war, armament, and in view of the statement nuclear war of any war, is to disarm. spokesmen, such as the Secretary of State, have indicated that they do not of the Secretary of State to that effect Does not the Senator feel that what believe that they are changing now, in March 1963, and in view of the Presi- has kept us out of a nuclear war, and dent's statement that it is a first step, what has been the greatest deterrent to eitThere is a hope. One never knows Is there much doubt in the Senator's war with the Communists, since World when the people under the domination mind as to how the executive branch War II ended, has been our tremendous of the Communists will start to cast off construes it? striking power, our nuclear weapons, and the shackles of communism. We hope I am not asking the Senator's con- the great strength and power of this and pray that there will come a time struction, but is there much question in Nation? when they will. Who knows when that the Senator's mind as to how the execu- Mr. MILLER. There are some who time will be? A majority of my brothers tive branch construes the treaty? It is may argue against it, but the Senator here seem to think this is the time; that that branch that will be charged with from South Carolina knows very well that we do not have to have a meaningful the enforcement of it. I believe deeply that most knowledgeable first step by the Soviets; that this is the Mr. MILLER. Let me say to the dis- people who have done their homework time for caviar and parties and bear tinguished Senator from South Carolina must admit that to be true. The con- hugs, which all of us saw on TV and that I am looking at the treaty now. cern that is often expressed by some heard about on the radio, as taking The preamble states: against disarmament is that they tend place in Moscow; and that this is sup- Proclaiming as their principal aim the to think in terms of disarmament in a posed to be the crystallization of the speediest possible achievement of an agree- sort of vacuimi. I do not regard it in change In Soviet intentions. meet on general and complete disarmament that light. To me, the only kind of dis- The Senator from Iowa does not be- under strict international control in accord- armament that the United States could lieve so. The Senator from Iowa hopes ance with the objectives of the United Na- conscientiously engage in vis-a-vis the and prays that it is. With all the red- tions which would put an end to the arma- Soviets would be one of relative disarma- testing he ince;z to meet, so that there would be a relative and I have set forth in my argument, tc and eliminate the e production and ea all kinds nd;s of and with the first hurdle being gotten wantons, including testing nuclear weapons. amount of power In our favor as between over, if the military, risks involved are Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of the two countries. acceptable, in light of the assurances of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all That is a very difficult problem, as the the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with the time, determined to continue negotiations Senator knows, to work out, but I do not withdrawal provision, I will go along. to this end, and desiring to put an. end to believe it should deter us from attempt- But let no one come to me a year from the contamination of man's environment by ing to make some strides in that direc- now, or 2 years from now, and say, "We radioactive substances, tion. I am persuaded that until the time have an amendment to the treaty. It Have agreed as follows- comes when we can spend our money on would provide for better relations be- I cannot see that the preamble states the better things of life for our people tween the United States and the Soviet that we are now undertaking to disarm. instgad of on armaments, we shall not Union. There are some security over- It merely states that we are aiming for have the kind of life that was intended tones in it, but we want you to vote for an agreement on general and complete for us by our Maker. Nevertheless, in the this amendment." Let no one do that disarmament, and trying to achieve dis- meantime I believe we had better keep unless I have seen a meaningful first continuance of all test explosions of nu- our powder dry. There is too much em- step in the meantime, because the policy clear weapons for all time. It is an ob- phasis being given to the argument that of accommodation has not worked. I jective, but the preamble does not state the. arms race causes world tensions. It am willing to go along this once, but if that the treaty is going to be a step in Is not the arms race that causes tensions. it does not work, I say let us "get on the that direction. I do not believe the pre- It is the aggressive nature of commu- ball" and follow the policy that has arable of the treaty could be said to nism. worked, which is a policy of firmness stand for the proposition that the treaty The President of the United States toward communism. is going to step down the arms race. has said that if Mr. Khrushchev would Mr. THURMOND. The Senator Mr. THURMOND. I remind the Sen- cease aggression, we would be in a much knows, does he not, that Secretary Rusk ator what Mr. Khrushchev said in East more positive situation. What he was is construing this as a first step toward Germany on January 16 of this year politely nudging Mr. Khrushchev on was Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008'2 16502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 the arms race being stepped down, it will be stepped up. We shall have to do more hardening of missile sites to provide margins of safety, in view of what the Senator from South Carolina has said. We shall have to spread our missiles out still more and have more of them, be- cause we are uncertain of Soviet devel- opments. Mr. THURMOND. How will we know how much to harden our missile sites if we cannot test in the atmosphere? Mr. MILLER. We do not know how much to harden them; all we can do is to guess. The Senator from South Caro- lina knows that we have always done that in our military activities. In addi- tion, we shall have to disperse our mis- siles more, so that we shall have the capability to retaliate if there are some weapons effects instruments that the So- viets might release, which might, over a large area, paralyze our missile control system. Mr. THURMOND. Under the treaty, is-It riot true that the United States will be unable to verify the ability of its mis- sile reentry bodies under defensive nu- clear attack to survive and to penetrate to the target without the opportunity to test nosecone and warhead designs in a nuclear environment under dynamic re- entry conditions? Mr. MILLER. This is true; but again, I think it could be said, with validity, that the Soviets probably do not have an adequate amount of information on that point either. Mr. THURMOND. Notwithstanding the tests which the Soviets conducted in 1961 and 1962? Mr. MILLER. According to my best information, that is something that is highly technical and difficult to evaluate. More than one series of. tests would be required to develop a creditable reentry vehicle, if indeed problems are develop- ing. Mr. THURMOND. Is it not true that the treaty will provide the Soviet Union an opportunity to equal U.S. accomplish- ments in submegaton weapon technol- . Mr. MILLER. Yes, indeed. However, I wish to be fair in`my statement. The Secretary of Defense and, as I recall, other administration spokesmen who favor the ratification of the treaty, indi- cated that this could be done. They did not try to dodge the question. Their answer' was that it would take a long time and would entail a large amount of additional expense to the Soviet Union to step up its underground testing sufficient- ly to hope, after several years, to catch up in that area. Mr. THURMOND. Is it not true that the treaty would deny to the United States a valuable source of information on Soviet nuclear weapons capabilities? Mr. MILLER. I do not know. I should say that even without the treaty, we face about the same problem, so far as our intelligence regarding Soviet nuclear weapons 'capabilities is con- cerned. I believe we have some good in- telligence on this subject. We do not have as ,much as we would like to have. Whether we have the treaty or do not have it, I do not believe there will be a great amount of difference in our in- telligence on this point. Perhaps I do not understand the thrust of the ques- tion asked by the Senator from South Carolina. I want to be responsive; but if I correctly interpret his question, I have given the best answer I can. Mr. THURMOND. Based upon the testimony of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other military people, and scientists, it is clear that the United States is ahead of the Soviets in low-yield weapons. I believe the Senator from Iowa will agree to that. Mr. MILLER. That is correct. Mr. THURMOND. It is further clear that under the treaty the Soviets could test underground and overcome their deficiency in that respect. Mr. MILLER. That is correct. But I wish to repeat, to be fair, that the proponents of the treaty recognize this- although they have a semirebuttal to it, in pointing out that it will entail a great amount of additional cost to the Soviets, and that it can be achieved only over a long period of time. Mr. THURMOND. The testimony be- fore the Preparedness Investigating Sub- committee also clearly shows that the Soviets are ahead of us in high-yield weapons and in the development and deployment of an anti-ballistic-missile system. Is it not true that we would have to test in the atmosphere, in order properly to overcome that deficiency? Mr. MILLER. Not quite, because it should be remembered that even granted that they are ahead of us in the develop- ment of an antimissile system-although I am not sure they are-I recognize that they may well have installed some kind of antimissile system, and I also recog- nize that they will not be content to stop there, either, but will get the best one they can, and will do so sooner than we do, if possible. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that in the foreseeable future, the penetration capabilities of our nu- clear retaliatory force will be quite suf- ficient to destroy Khrushchev and the Soviet Union, in the event they attempt to make the first strike. Mr. THURMOND. I invite the atten- tion of the Senator-if he has not had an opportunity to read it-to the testi- mony in the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who definitely, explicitly, and pre- cisely said the Soviets do have a lead on us in the antiballistic missile system field. Mr. MILLER. Yes. But the Senator knows that the problem is, How much? No one knows how much their lead really Mr. THURMOND. To the extent that they have one developed and deployed whereas we have none deployed, and it is a matter of fact that it would take us 4 years to deploy an ABM system. Also the Soviets has made more sophisti- cated tests than we have. Mr. MILLER. That is correct; and I think there should be no disagreement on that point. Mr. THURMOND. Except for the fact that our intelligence shows that the Soviet system is capable of knocking down medium-range ' missiles, which travel up to approximately 1,200 miles; and intermediate-range missiles, which travel up to about 2,500 miles; and, under certain favorable conditions, inter- continental ballistic missiles, which trav- el from 5,000 to 7,000 miles. Our intelli- gence may be wrong; but that is what our own intelligence shows. Mr. MILLER. Assuming that to be correct, I suggest to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina that the Soviets would live a long, long, long way to go before they could develop and set up a comparable defense system around all the major cities in the Soviet Union. So I believe they have a long way to go in making that development. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we should not concern ourselves with the development of an effective antimissile system sooner than the Soviets develop one. But this system will extend far be- yound the confines of one localized area, which is where I understand the Soviet system now is. It will have to be nation- wide, and that will take a long time. I hope we do not have to develop it to that point; but I believe'we would be foolish, indeed, if we proceeded on the assump- tion that the Soviets would not try to succeed before we do. Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator. In view of his excellent mili- tary background and knowledge, and his stated lack of trust of the Communists, and also in view of the disadvantages of the treaty, as he has expressed them in his address today, and also throughout the debate on the treaty, I am still at a loss to understand how the able Senator has reached the conclusion to support the treaty. Mr. MILLER. I thank the distin- guished Senator from South Carolina. He well knows my great respect and af- fection for him and also my great respect for his military knowledge, which is un- excelled by that of any other Member of the Senate. I may say that the last paragraph of my speech was included because I am cognizant of the position of the Senator from South Carolina and of other dedi- cated Senators. who, in their conscience, feel that they cannot favor approval of the treaty. These matters should be viewed in the proper perspective. Some persons no doubt will say the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], and the Senator from Wyo- ming [Mr. SIMPsoNl, and other Sena- tors who cannot in good conscience vote for approval of the treaty, therefore are in favor of an unlimited nuclear arms race far into the future, and so forth. I believe it best to lay that misunderstand- ing to rest, once and for all; and I have done my best to do so. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I will vote for approval of the nuclear test ban treaty. This is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make, dealing-as it does-with our future security. As is the case with most issues of great importance, not all the merit is on one side. While the danger of fallout from nu- clear testing may be overestimated, the great majority of people throughout the Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 1963 Approved Fof Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R0001002,10008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE to get -off the Communist ideology and get on to something more peaceful. I do not expect to see him do, so for. some time. It may be that he will, but I want to see something more concrete first. I am not at all impressed by fine words. I am not impressed by Moscow cham- pagne and caviar parties and smiles and bear hugs. We must have some concrete evidence first before we take another first step, if it be a first step. Mr. THURMOND. I am sure the Sen- ator is familiar with the report of the Preparedness Subcommittee. Mr. MILLER. Yes. Mr. THURMOND. Under the treaty, is it not true that the United States prob ably will be unable to duplicate Soviet achievements in very high yield weapon technology? Mr. MILLER. I believe the Senator is reading from the conclusions of the Pre paredi:iess Subcommittee. I have al- ready quoted from the major findings in my main speech. I recognize the probable validity of these conclusions, although I point out that perhaps even the formidable state meat that was put into the conclusions was worded in the terminolpgy of "may- be" or "perhaps." That is the difficulty with all the evidence that we have on the treaty. It is opinion evidence or practi- Gaily all of it is. Very little of it is fac- tual evidence. Therefore, it is necessary to weigh possibilities and, probabilities and "maybe's," "might's," "could's," and "should's" to arrive at a conclusion. This makes the task extremely difficult. Honest people can differ on the degree of emphasis they will give. What I have been mainly trying to do has been to put some of the arguments in their proper perspective. Both for and against the treaty. In my mail I have received cliches on both sides of the iss e. I am not denying the sincerity with which they were offered. However, they are not persuasive, and I believe they ought to be reduced to size, so that when Senators vote they will vote on the basis of reason and logic and sound judgment, instead of on the basis of cliches and arguments that should have no relevancy in the Senate. Mr. THURMOND. Because of the Senator's military experience, I am sure he realizes the value of the Preparedness Subcommittee's report. I wish to point up certain things in it in a few more questions. Under this treaty, is it,not true that the United States will be un- able to acquire necessary data on the effects of very high yield atmospheric explosions? Mr. MILLER. That question can be answered only in terms of possibility or probability. What are "necessary data"? It is difficult to determine whether they are necessary or unneces- sary. Some people think they are abso- lutely necessary. Others seem to, think we can get along without them, and that If we find as tulle goes on we cannot get along without them, we can withdraw from the treaty. I do not expect the relative power be- tween the Soviet Union and the United States to blow up. overnight. It will be some time before the Soviets catch up to the point of offsetting our deterrent abil- ity. That will occur over a period of several years. In that time, we can de- tect changes sufficient to enable us to reach a determination as to whether we .should withdraw from the treaty. In the face of world opinion, such with- drawal would not be easy. It would be necessary for the President and the Members of the Senate to be courageous about it. However,] do not believe I can answer the question of the Senator from South Carolina any better than I have answered it. It is hard to say whether it is necessary. I agree that we will not be able to obtain certain infor- mation on weapons effects which the Soviets have obtained. The President of the United States said as much in March of 1962. He said that they had obtained weapons ,effects information that would probably take them 2 or 3 years to analyze, and that we do not have it. I am, satisfied that as a result of our rather limited testing in 1962, we have less comparable information to analyze. Mr. THURMOND. Under this treaty, is it not true that the United States will be unable to acquire data on high alti- tude nuclear weapons effects? Mr. MILLER. Neither side can do so under the treaty. The point I wish to make-and I thought I had agreed with the Senator on it-is that the Soviets, by virtue of their massive tests in 19(31, have acquired certain data which we probably have not acquired as a result of our rather limited test series of 1962. Mr. THURMOND. If the treaty, is adopted, we will not be able to acquire the information. Isthat correct? Mr. MILLER. That is correct. Mr. THURMOND. Under the treaty, is it not true that the United States will be unable to determine with confidence the performance and reliability of any ABM system developed without benefit of atmospheric operational system tests? Mr. MILLER. The testimony on this point, as the Senator knows, was divided. I am inclined to think that Dr. Teller's testimony on this point was more per- suasive than the testimony on the other side. In any event, it was of equal qual- ity. The proponents of the treaty say we do not need to test. Dr. Teller and others say we need to test. It is a dif- ficult question for anyone to evaluate and upon which to come to a conclusion. I go one step further, if the Senator from South Carolina wishes to know how I reconciled my position on the treaty with that problem. There are two ways. First, the withdrawal provisions of the treaty. I am satisfied that the Soviet Union will not for a long time develop an antimissile system which will effectively take care of our weapons. They will be working for one, probably, and they may develop one. But I am satisfied we will get information in the meantime which will indicate to us whether we need to test our system. Under the withdrawal provisions of the treaty, we shall be able to do so. Mr. THURMOND. Speaking of Dr. Teller, I should like to quote a statement he made in January of this year: A test ban treaty with the Soviet Union would prevent vital improvements of our atomic explosives, as _ well as foreclose the development of antimissile systems like the Nike-Zeus and the Nike-X. It would not keep the Russians from cheating. Such a treaty, in sutra, would endanger our security and help the Soviet Union in its plan to can- quer the world. Mr. MILLER. I remember that Dr. Teller testified. in similar vein during the hearings on the treaty. As I said in my speech, Dr. Teller's knowledgeable testi- mony and his powerful logic is certainly of as high quality as any of ' the testi- mony'on the other side. But the problem is: What if the So- viets are able to test, as I)r. Teller says they are, without detection? Will the results of those tests be significant? That is the magic word. Dr. Teller says they will be significant. Secretary Mc- Namara says they will not be significant. So we are confronted with the problem whether there will be significant develop- ments resulting from the Soviets' clan- destine tests, assuming they propose to do so. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we will make that assump- tion. This is a difficult problem. I still say that if we adhere to the safe- guards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will be able to detect, through our intelligence, whether there have been sufficient developments so that we shall be sufficiently forewarned and be able to withdraw from the treaty. Mr. THURMOND. Does the Senator from Iowa consider that the tests the Soviets made in 1961 and 1962 were sig- nificant? Mr. MILLER. I believe they were highly significant. This is one of the main reasons why the argument that is now advanced by the proponents of the treaty, who signed the treaty, was offered to the Soviets in 1958 and by President Kennedy in 1.961; therefore, we must fol- low through with it now. But they com- pletely ignore the change in factual cir- cumstances since the previous offers of the treaty, riot the least of which was the massive series of Soviet tests in 1961, which had highly significant results. The big question is whether the results they obtained compared with the results that they previously obtained, plus the results we obtained in our limited series in 1962, have created a significant im- balance which could lead to a significant imbalance in technology vis-a-vis the two nations. I am persuaded that they do not; but if they do, 'wa will have available the withdrawal provisions of the treaty. Mr. THURMOND. The able Senator from Iowa be'.ng an Air Force Reserve officer, I am sure he will be familiar with the next question: Under the treaty, is it not true that the United States will be unable to verify the ability of its hardened underground second-strike missile systems to survive close-in high-yield nuclear explosions? . Mr. MILLER. That is true; but some- thing must be added in answer to the question. It can be doubted whether the Soviets know the answer. Furthermore, prudence would dictate that margins of safety, certainly within reason, be pro- vided in the hardening of our missile sites. I have said that this will be an- other result of the treaty. Instead of Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved Fof Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE world fear that unlimited testing could seriously affect the health of this gen- eration and future generations. Thus far nuclear testing has been limited to that by the United States, Russia, Eng- land, and France. In a matter of a few short years other nations will be in a position to, test nuclear weapons, thus greatly increasing the danger of *nuclear fallout, in the ,absence of a nuclear test ban agreement. Another serious question involved is that of easing the cold war tensions with Communist. Russia. It is impossible for the United States to avoid having to deal with Communist Russia in Berlin and in countless other areas throughout the world. There is some advantage to a better relationship, if this can be ac- complished without endangering our na- tional security. The provisions of the test ban treaty itself leave ample room for any of the signators to withdraw- perhaps too much to be effective. Limit- ing nuclear testing is the goal sought by most people throughout the world, and earnestly advocated by both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. I am well aware that the Soviet Union has violated most of its treaties and agreements with us and other nations. This one may be, too; but nothing will be lost if we continue, and even accelerate, our vast program of research and de- velopment of nuclear weapons, and con- tinue to prepare for future tests, which could be resumed immediately follow- .ing, any violation by Russia. We have this assurance through a letter by Presi- dent Kennedy to the Si@hate.' Equally important, there is a sizable increase in the appropriations for this purpose in both the House and the Senate versions of the appropriations bill`s. I would never vote for approval of the treaty if I had the slightest doubt that our research and development in all phases of nuclear power would not only be continued, but also would be ex- panded and vigorously pursued. A strong national defense is still, and al- ways will be, our greatest assurance of peace and security. The United States now is capable of destroying every military installation and every important city in Russia at least 25 times over. We could literally cover Russia in a sea of flames. The most important defense weapon of the future is the Nike-X, an antimis- sile missile on which we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, in research and development. If this can be perfected-and that is pos- sible within a comparatively short time- this, together with our other defense weapons, could give us a high degree of protection against any nuclear attack, whether by plane, missile, or submarine. One of the most important questions involved in approving the treaty is whether nuclear testing would be neces- sary in the perfection of this antimissile missile. On this question, again there is some disagreement among our top mil- itary authorities. Gen. Curtis LeMay, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, reluc- tantly approved the nuclear test ban treaty, because he felt it would be de- No. 148-lo si.rable to test the Nike-X missiles with nuclear warheads attached, before they were deployed. He felt the same way with respect to the Minuteman, Titan, and Atlas missiles, which already are de- ployed, but never have been tested with nuclear warheads. attached. Since our military authorities believe it is not necessary to test these missiles with nu- clear warheads attached, it is question- able whether the Nike-X would be tested with its nuclear. warhead; even if there were no test ban treaty. We have many thousands of nuclear warheads already perfected and ready to be attached to the Nike-X or any other weapon. After long and careful study of all the testimony on both sides of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that more is to be gained by approving the test ban treaty than by disapproving, it. I do not subscribe to the position-taken by a few of our military leaders, and some others-that nuclear war is inevitable. If this were the case, there would be little hope for the future. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. Presi- dent-The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, KENNEDY - in the chair). The Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG] is recognized. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. For several weeks, members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, members of the Com- mittee on Armed Services, and the Sen- ate Members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy have examined inten- sively the proposed limited nuclear test ban treaty. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I desire to thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, for in- viting all members of the Committee on Armed Services to participate in the hearings of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee on the limited test ban treaty. I am grateful to the chairman of that great. committee, not only for inviting me to attend those sessions, but also for calling on me to ask questions of all witnesses. Mr. President, it happens that I first read this treaty approximately 4 days before it was even initialed.. I have at- tended the committee meetings and I have studied the treaty; and I now be- lieve that the Senate has intensively examined it. In my judgment, every conceivable . implication of the treaty, every word, every comma, and every period, has been minutely examined. More thorough consideration has never been given to any matter which has come before the Senate. As the distinguished majority leader has said, in the last analysis the ques- tion which confronts us is simply whether the proposed treaty does, on balance, serve the interests of the people of the United States? Some.Senators have engaged in a great deal. of discussion and there have been many expressions of doubt regarding the reliability of the safeguards in the treaty. Those who oppose the treaty exaggerate the risk of cheating. They minimize the risk of continuing the arms race. The treaty contains the specific reserva- tion that our Nation may scrap the agreement if that is deemed. necessary by our President for our national security. Furthermore if the Soviet Union were to violate any provisions of the treaty, it would be voided imme- diately, In addition, each nation may continue underground tests so long as radioactive debris is not deposited out- side its territorial limits. Of course, we shall not rely solely upon Soviet good faith. We shall rely on our far-flung detection network which instantly warns of atmospheric tests or underwater tests anywhere in the world. Mr. President, the treaty gives us the right to resume testing in the atmos- phere, under water, or in outer space whenever we feel that our national security requires it. Three Presidents of the United States-Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy-have striven patiently to achieve an effective nuclear test, ban treaty, and they have endorsed the one before us, The Chairman and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have endorsed- it, By far the ma- jority of the scientists and the nuclear physicists who testified before the For- eign Relations Committee strongly en- dorsed the treaty. Every possible safe- guard and precaution to protect our vital national interests have been taken in the drafting of this historic document. Of course, there are. risks in this as in any venture in foreign relations. Com- monsense will balance them against the risks of continued massive testing with all that it implies for the poisoning of the atmosphere and the aggravation of an arms race that would end only in disaster. There are also risks in failing to venture; risks in standing still in a world of change and challenge which does not remain stationary for this or any other nation. This treaty is an objective which two administrations, representing both po- litical parties, have patiently sought in spite of repeated discouragements, and notwithstanding opposition and criti- cism at home. It was a prime element in the foreign policy of the Eisenhower administration. When President Ken- nedy assumed office _ he could, had he chosen have ignored the efforts of the previous administration. However, he pursued this policy as it is in the best of interests of all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation. It will not usher in the millennium. It will not end the cold war. It will not totally disarm the Soviet Union. It will not end the threat of Communist aggression. It will not bring about at once total and com= plete disarmament. It will be a step to- ward ending one area of armament com- petition. It may pave the way for prog- ress in other areas. Should we reject this treaty, the risks of paralyzed uncertainty and the result- ing petrified foreign policy may be far greater than those, if any, which might result from ratification. Mr. President, the Communist mas- ters of Red China have denounced. this treaty. In this they are in complete Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 18 Events may disappoint the hopes and expectations of those who have proposed this treaty. It does not, by itself, and for all time, automatically preclude the resumption of atmospheric testing, but it may well result in that most desirable end. And if it does, its adoption may spare unnumbered thousands of our own countrymen and millions, around the world the pain and sorrow of terrible, wasting lifelong injury. And it may lift from mankind the dread menace and dire threat of damage to the genetic in- tegrity of the human family that would cast its dark shadow forward through the generations down to children born a thousand years from now. Opponents of ratification have had much to say regarding Dr. Edward Teller and his testimony. He is one of a very few leading scientists who oppose this limited test ban treaty. Therefore, re- garding Dr. Teller let us consider the record. The burden of Dr. Teller's advice now is that to give up atmospheric testing would grant the Soviets a dangerous ad- vantage in developing a missile defense. This view is not supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff or by other scientists of equal or greater competence. It should be measured against previous alarms raised by Dr. Teller when a test ban was under discussion. In 1957, when the Eisenhower admin- istration was considering a moratorium, Dr. Teller was the leader of a scientific group which strenuously opposed any such policy on the ground that it would dangerously interfere with our develop- ment of a 100 percent clean bomb. According to a news article in the Washington Post, there is good reason to believe that the bomb Teller was talk- ing about had been developed and indeed even secretly tested before 1957. Ap- parently no one wanted it then and ap- parently no one wants it now. In 1959, when the United States and Russia had temporarily suspended test- ing not by treaty but simply under an unwritten agreement and begun nego- tiations for a formal ban, Dr. Teller ad- vanced a different reason for his opposi- tion. Then he argued that tests were absolutely necessary in order to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, such as Project Plowshare-atomic explosions to deepen a harbor or to build a canal. In 1961, he produced still another rea- son. 'ibis time, a test ban would dan- gerously interfere with our development of a neutron bomb, the absolute weapon that would kill people but do no damage to property. Little is heard these days about the neutron bomb, about the clean bomb, about the need for large atmospheric ex- plosions for peaceful purposes. New it is the antiballistic missile which Dr. Teller dangles before. the Senate. But irr view of the record, how much con- fidence can be placed in his advice? The question is a" l the more pertinent in view of the fact that in 1960 when Dr. Teller was arguing that the United States should break the moratorium then `in force by resuming underground test- Ing, he actually advocated almost ex- actly what the Kennedy administration is advocating now. "All developments of nuclear explosives which are really necessary," he then wrote, "can be car- ried out by methods which will not con- tribute to the contamination of the air. We can cont4nue the development of nuclear weapons without causing any further contact of human beings with radioactivity." That is exactly what the administra- tion now proposes. Furthermore, as President Kennedy emphasized at a re- cent news conference, he proposes to keep our nuclear laboratories function- ing at full strength, to prepare standby facilities for the.immediate resumption of atmospheric tests in case the treaty is violated, and to improve detection methods so that any violation will cer- tainly be found out. Dr. Teller's argu- ment that the treaty will tragically weaken the Nation simply does not stand up. On the other hand, the failure to ratify, with all that this would imply for acceleration of the arms race, would be a real tragedy for the world at large. I am not one of the younger Members of the Senate of the United States. I am one of the older Members who sit in this small rectangular chamber which is truly the hall of the States. I feel I speak for the fathers and mothers of this country who fear that the milk their children drink will be more and more contaminated and poisoned if the atmosphere is permitted to be pol- luted by nuclear explosions of 4, 6, 8 or 20 nuclear powers, as our Presi- dent said t11'ere would be in 1975 unless some treaty such as this is rati- fied. I know this treaty is not merely good for those fathers and mothers and for their childil`'en. I know this is good for my four young granddaughters, who will with others of similar ages be the trustees and ?uardians of this Nation in a comparatively few years. I want them to live in a country which is secure and powerful as is our country at this time- also in a clear atomsphere of peace, in- stead of in a grim period of cold war and international anarchy. This limited test ban treaty is a small step in the long journey :for the peace of the world. In that hour of decision when we are asked to support our President and ad- vise and consent to the ratification of this nuclear test ban treaty, I will sup- port our President. Every vote cast against ratification will have the same power and weight as every two votes cast in favor of ratification. I hope and I believe that the Senate will ratify this treaty by an overwhelming margin and that we shall vote down overwhelmingly every amendment and reservation. We, have heard of some reservations which will be offered. We have seen the letter written. by our President to the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, setting forth eight specific assurances. We have seen the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. We know there is no necessity whatso- ever for any reservations or understand- ings. We know that if a so-called res- ervation were offered and adopted, it would kill the treaty, since it would then agreement with members of the radical right-wing fringe in our own country who claim that coexistence; is impossi- ble. Coexistence is defined as existing together. Do those who oppose the lim- ited test ban treaty, claiming there can- not be coexistence with the Soviet Union, believe the Russians will just cease to exist? The alternative to co- existence is coannihilation. Together we have power to destroy millions of Americans and Europeans. In 10 years, if China with 700 million population be- comes a nuclear power, then what? Ob- viously, we should take this short step toward peace by ratifying the limited nuclear test ban treaty. The test ban is an acknowledgement and a reflection of the nuclear stalemate that exists. The Soviets have bigger H-bombs than we do; we have far more warheads, a greater variety and superior delivery weapons. Neither side has true superiority as each possesses the power to destroy the other if it is willing to be destroyed itself. Armaments races ultimately led to World Wars I and II. Let us hope this treaty signals the beginning of the end of today's armaments race. There would be no victor in a nuclear war. Questions were asked of the preceding speaker whether the treaty might not mark the end of today's armaments race. I hope that ratification of the treaty will have that end result. Mr. President, if not for ourselves, then for our children and our children's children and for all generations to come, we owe a duty to take this first small, cautious, well-protected step toward peace and toward ending continued pol- lution of the atmosphere. Some scien- tists claim that the genetic damage al- ready done has been very substantial. We cannot afford to gamble with the health and lives of unborn children. Debate over the test ban treaty has been so crowded with examination of its purely military consequences that the virtue of eliminating radioactive fallout ,sometimes seems almost to be lost sight of in the overall discussion. The genetic damage that will result from tests already conducted by any standard of measurement are terrible and horrifying. This damage might be multiplied were indiscriminate tests by many nations to take place in the fu- ture. The consequences of testing alone, to say nothing of the risk of war itself, might possibly work an alteration upon the environment of this planet that would cause dreadful injury to the health of all mankind. The weight of the world's scientific opinion is that radioactive fallout from testing has increased-and future test- ing would further increase-the hazards due to natural radiation;, that any in- crease is likely to cause some additional genetic damage. The test ban treaty committing others to refrain from testing, greatly dimin- ishes this hazard. The suspension of atmospheric testing, in these altered cir- cumstances, becomes an armative gain of, the most enormous consequences to the human race. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL,RECQRJ ,- SENATE be necessary to submit the treaty to com- plete renegotiation. I pray that nothing like this will hap- pen. I feel certain it will not. If our Commander-in-Chief, our President, is to be struck down by a vote rejecting this treaty I want no accusing finger to be pointed to me that mine was the as- sassin's blow. The ' treaty may not. work. In .that event . o% political, military and scien- tific leaders have assured us that our national security will not have been jeop- ardized. However, we must allow our- selves the luxury of a faint glimmer of hope. This treaty is just that. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Ohio will vote t o ratify 'this treaty. I believe it to be .a.step, however small, in the director of preserving a world fit for our children to live in and a step forward In the history of human civilization. `Several Senators addressed the Chair, 'Mr, YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, I shall yield first, to the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUESIING]. Before doing so, in view of the colloquy which occurred immediately before I obtained the floor, and the reference that was made to Or, Edward Teller, let inc say that for most of my adult life I have been a trial ,lawyer. When I rep- resented a losing side, and had one'posi- tive witness, though his testimony may be rebuted by all the opposing witnesses, I likedto emphasize his testimony. 'This appears to be the case with opponents of the treaty -and their star witness, Dr. Teller. In reading the hearings before the Committee. on Roreign Relations, I dis- covered that the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] oblit- erated, the validity and force of, Dr. Teller's testimony, in the questios he asked him, by using certain quotations from the writings of Dr. Teller himself. The Senator asked Dr. Teller: I have before me'some quotations from Write] gs that you have published in that duterval between .the Eisenhower adminis- tration and the present time-that are per- tinent to the inquiry today-the statements which you have made. I would like to iden- tify them for you and read them to you. I have four and since they are all related in a sense, let me read the four and then you can make such -comment as you care to make about them. - The first is an excerpt from an articles of yours entitled "The Issues of Peace," which was published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in June of 1960, and appears on page 203, in which you say, and I quote: "I say that we can stop nuclear testing in the atmosphere. We may do this unilater- ally. We can then challenge the Russians to follow suit even if they won't sign a treaty." That ends the quote. The second quote is from an article of yours which appeared in the Washington Evening Star in Augustof 1960 from which I quote as follows: "We should renounce- nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere. We should chal- lenge the Russians to do likewise and we should use our influence In the United Na- -tlons.,ta, prevent atmospheric weapons tests by all nations." That,entls the quote. Irpm toe same article there is a second quote as follows: "All developments of nuclear explosives which are really necessary can be carried out by methods which will not contribute to the contemination of the air. We can continue the development of nuclear weapons without causing any further contact of human beings with radioactivity." In other words, underground testing. Then the Senator from Idaho pro- pounded the final question to the wit- ness, reading an extract from the "Legacy of Hiroshima, Dr. Teller's book, published in 1962: Is an effective test ban possible? In the atmosphere and beneath the surface of the ocean, yes. In these areas the biosphere, the sphere of living beings, violations of -a test ban could be detected. 'Those four quotations from Dr. Tel- ler's writing were used _ in questioning the witness. The Senator from Idaho had asked him how he ? could reconcile those statements with his present at- titude. The witness said: The simple answer to your question is don't reconcile them. They are contrad ic- tory. He went on to say this: Now, after having eliminated a small part of the contradiction, I want simply and completely to say that the biggest part of the contradiction _remains and is to be, ex- plained by the fact that I have changed my mind. I ask those who will quote this same doctor in support of their position against this limited nuclear test ban treaty. Is it not just as likely that a year from now, or two years from now, he may again say, "I have changed my mind" and he may say it rather sheep- ishly? It is my belief and my fervent hope that more than 80 Senators will vote to ratify the limited nuclear test ban treaty and take this important first step forward toward peace. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will .the Senator yield? Mr. YOUNG of . Ohio. I yield to the Senator from Alaska. Mr. GRUENING. I congratulate my able and distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio, on the con- structive, well-reasoned, and farsighted presentation of his views on the test ban treaty. I am confident that he rep- resents the views of the overwhelming majority of the American people. The test ban treaty is one of the great achievements of our time, whatever may be the ultimate result. As the junior Senator from Ohio has so well pointed out, if we merely suc- ceed for a time in stopping the poisonous fallout, which may destroy the health and happiness of countless people for generations to come, we shall have achieved a success; but I am confident, as he is, that this is an important step forward. I think the Senator has con- tributed greatly to the discussion, and I congratulate and commend him for it. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I thank the Senator from Alaska. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I raise the point of order that the Senate is not in order. 'The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator X50 1. W from Ohio [Mr. Yours] has the floor and can yield only for a question. Mr.' YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL]. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I have no objection to Senators asking ques- tions of a, , speaker,_ but I do object to the irregular practice of passing out time by Members of the Senate. I also ob- ject to the practice of requesting and o'btaining time 3 or 4 days in advance in the case of a Senator who wishes to leave the Senate and not be in the Cham- ber, thus being able to go off somewhere else. I believe-the time has come when we should observe the regular order in the Senate. There is no question that the practice . of passing out time days in advance -for speakers on the floor is contributing to the breakdown of the legislative processes of the Congress. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, yihv e then floor, and 'I am prepared to the floor. I' ask"unanimous con- sent that the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Vermont be placed in the RECORD after my state- ment. The PRESIDING- OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I yield the floor. Mr. AIKEN. I realize that practically everything that can be said on the treaty has been said. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. ORDER LIMITING DEBATE Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished minority leader and myself I send to the desk a unanimous-consent request and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent request will be read for the information of the Senate. The unanimous-consent request was read, as follows:' UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT Ordered, That, effective on Monday, Sep- tember 23, 1963, at the conclusion of routine morning business, during the further con- sideration of the treaty on nuclear test ban (Ex. M, 88th Cong., 1st sess.), debate on any amendment or preamble to the resolution of ratification, motion, or appeal, except a mo- tion to lay on the table, shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of any such a proposal or mo- tion and the majority leader: Provided, That in the event the majority leader is in favor of any such a proposition, the time in oppo- sition thereto shall be controlled by the mi- nority leader or some Senator designated by him: Provided further, That no amendment that is not germane to the provisions of the said resolution shall be received. All reser- vations or understandings already printed shall be deemed germane. Ordered further, That on the question of the final agreement to the resolution of rati- fication debate shall be limited to 6 hours, to be equally divided and controlled, respec- -tively, by the majority and minority leaders or someone designated by them: Provided, That the said leaders, or either of them, may, from the time under their control on the adoption of the resolution, allot additional time to any Senator during the consideration of any of the above proposals: Provided fur- ther, That a final vote on the adoption of Approved For Release 2004/03/11 'CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2. 16506 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383RU00100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 the resolution of ratification shall be taken Senate met on Tuesday, it would be for On September 11, the minority leadex'. at 10 a.m. Tuesday, September 24, 1963. the purpose of voting on the treaty. the distinguished Senator from Illinois Ordered further, That the Senate shall con- ii[r. GORE. Then all Senators maybe [Mr. DIRKSEN], made a remarkable veneat 10 a.m. on September 23, 1963, and on notice that there may be yea-and-nay speech in this Chamber. In his speech, 9:30 a.m. on September 24, 1963. votes on amendments, reservations, and the Senator from Illinois read a clear- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there interpretations? cut statement ;from President Kennedy objection? Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I must object. I should like to ask the majority leader if there is any binding under- standing as to when the time for debate on the treaty shall be used. Mr. MANSFIELD. As I understand the unanimous-consent request, that would be in the discretion of the ma- jority and minority leaders. I assure the Senator from Nebraska that, so far as we are concerned-I believe I speak for the minority leader also-we will do the best we can, within reasonable limits, to bring the reservations and understandings to a vote as soon as possible, so as to reserve the time on the treaty for later in the day. Mr. CURTIS. Is there any under- standing as to the order in which the reservations will be called up? Mr. MANSFIELD. It is my under- standing that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], if he has not done so already, will submit his reservation today and speak on it tomorrow or Friday, and that it is his intention to call it up the first thing on Monday morning next. Mr. CURTIS. May I inquire whether I correctly understand that the unani- mous-consent request is that the yea- and-nay vote on the treaty itself will be at 10 a.th. on Tuesday next? Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. The purpose of convening at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday is to give every Senator an opportunity to be present. The vote will occur one-half hour after the Senate convenes. Mr. CURTIS. I must object. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest that the time for the vote on the treaty on Tuesday be changed from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., and that the time of convening on Tuesday morning be 10:30 instead of 9:30. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the agreement, as modified? Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, the Senator'has reference to the final vote on the resolution of ratification. Is that correct? Mr..MANSFIELD. That is correct. Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object only to Inquire about the votes on the other motions and reser- vaions and amendments. Is it expected that there will be yea-and-nay votes on Monday, or would it be possible to com- plete the debate on the reservations and to have the yea-and-nay votes come on Tuesday? Mr, MANSFIELD. In response to the question raised by the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, I should like to say that arriving at this unani- mous-consent request has taken a great deal of time. It has taken a great deal of time to negotiate. It is anticipated that' the debate on the treaty would be cleared by Monday night; and that the votes would be taken on the reservations, understandings, and so forth, if re- Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. which should have reassured all but Mr. PASTORE. Not amendments. those who are determined not to be Mr. MANSFIELD. Reservations. reassured. Mr. PASTORE. Reservations, under- The Senator from Illinois then an- standings, or preambles. nounced his unequivocal support for the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there test ban treaty without reservations. It obj ection? was an intelligent speech for it reflected Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, :first of the fact that its author had studied all, I believe it should be made clear without stint all the arguments and facts that on a reservation 1 hour of debate which have been presented for and will be allowed, a half hour on each side. against this treaty. Is that correct? It was a fair and honorable speech, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The for the Senator from Illinois did not Senator is correct. hesitate to give the opponents of the Mr. DIRKSEN. In the discussions on treaty the benefit of every doubt which the proposed unanimous-consent agree- they may hold in arriving at their own ment it was fully understood that no decision. intervening business of any kind what- It was a c*arageous speech, for the soever would be brought up, including minority leader must surely have known any calendar business, until the treaty that it would bring down on his head the had been disposed of. Is that correct? curse of the emotionally militant ele- Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. If ment of our society. on Monday additional time is needed on During the course of his speech, Sen- the treaty, we shall be happy to do our ator DIRKSEN made reference to the large best to comply with such requests. amount of mail he has received on this The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there issue. My own mail on the test ban objection? The Chair hears none, and treaty has been quite heavy though not the agreement as modified is entered. recordbreaking in volume. It has been Mr. PASTORE. I congratulate the recordbreaking in one respect, how- majority and minority leaders. ever: At-no time in my recollection has The unanimous-consent request, as the mail on any issue before Congress subsequently reduced to writing, is as contained so many threats and vitupera- follows: - tions as that of the last few weeks. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT I want to make clear that most of the Ordered, That, effective on Monday, Sep- opposition to the treaty comes from tember 23, 1963, at the conclusion of routine conscientious people. These people morning business, during the further con- really believe that the risk involved in sideration of the treaty on the nuclear test the treaty does outweigh. any possible ban (Ex. M, 88th Conga, 1st sess.), debate on benefits.. Others have been the victims any amendment or preamble to the resolu- of plausible sounding propaganda. tion of ratification, motion, or appeal, ex- The country is being flooded by cir- cept a motion to lay on the table, shall be culars purportedly issued by organiza- limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of any such a pro- Lions with highly respectable sounding posal or motion and the majority leader: names, but which are unknown to official Provided, That in the event the majority Government agencies. These circulars leader is in favor of any such a proposition, contain inflammatory statements in- the time in opposition thereto shall be con- tended to make the reader hate the word trolled by the minority leader or some Sen- "peace" and all those who dare to advo- ator designated by him: Provided further, cate it. They even go so far as to imply That no amendment that is not germane to that the Senator from Illinois is opposed the provisions of the said resolution shall the treaty and that those who do not be received. All reservations or understand- ings already printed shall be deemed ger- help him kill it are either blind or mane. disloyal. Ordered further, That on the question of To date, I have received many com- the final agreement to the resolution of rati- munications for and against the treaty. fication, debate shall be limited to 6 hours, Counting those from California and to be equally divided and controlled:, respec- Texas, which appear to be largely or - tively, by the majority and minority leaders ganizational mail, I would say that 60 or someone designated by them: Provided, percent of them are in opposition to the That the said leaders, or either of them, may, treaty. The mail from New England from the time under their control on the will run 80 percent or better in favor adoption of the resolution, allot additional time to any Senator during the consideration of the treaty. of any of the above proposals: Provided fur- Before this treaty is voted on, I expect I th.er, That a final vote on adoption of the will have received many more 'protests resolution of ratification shall be taken at against it-at least one outfit is advis- 11 a.m. Tuesday, September 24, 1962,. ing its members and sympathizers to Ordered further, That the Senate shall smother me with protests. convene at 10 a.m. on September 23, 1963, These protests might seem quite for- and 10:30 a.m. on September 24, 1963. midable indeed were it not for the fact Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I realize that 190 million people in America have that not much more can be said either not protested the test ban. treaty in spite for or against the approval of the par- of the propaganda to which they are tial test ban treaty. However. there are subjected. them out -of the way, so that when the to comment briefly at this time. confidence enough in Congress to leave Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 ?W650 ROCrol 210008-2 Approved Far ONGR1 SS ONAL1 RE& -00 the decision to us, I shall believe that most of them are not opposed to the very small step toward peace which this treaty represents. In advocating the approval of the treaty, the minority leader was repre-' genting the : official position of the Re- publican Party and I believe also the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the American public. The Republican: platform of 1960 stated: We are similarly ready to negotiate and to institute realistic methods and safeguards for disarmament, and for the suspension of nuclear tests. We'advocate an early agree- ment by all nations to forego nuclear' tests in the atmosphere, and the suspension of other tests as verification techniques permit. We support the President in any decision he may make to reevaluate the question of re- sumption of underground nuclear explosions testing, if the Geneva Conference fails to produce a satisfactory agreement. We have deep concern about the mounting nuclear arms race,. This concern leads us to seek disarmament and nuclear agreements. And an equalconcern to protect all peoples from nuclear danger, leads us to insist that such agreements have adequate safeguards.- That statement was not merely a cam- paign promise. It was a serious effort to put the party on record as urging a world without war. It was intended to tell the world that the Republican Party is not the party of fear. It was intended to express the hope of the party that there need be no Moro Hiroshimas with their ghastly toll of horror and death. I do believe, Mr. President, that fear is at the bottom of most of the opposition to the treaty-not alone the fear of los- ing one's life through enemy instruments of destruction, but the fear that from this very, small first step there may emerge a changing pattern in the world, a pattern from which may be molded a world of universal law rather than uni- versal war and preparation for such war. If we should find ourselves in a posi- tion of not having to be constantly pre- paring for war, it would indeed change the pattern of our national economy. A substantial. part of our gross national product is generated directly and indi- rectly from arms' production and pre- parationfor possible war. This business has always been profitable, in many countries. I can well understand the fears of management, investors, and employees that their business, their incomes, and their jobs might be curtailed if the seed planted by the treaty should grow to greater proportions. However, I feel that this fear which is ,reflected in some of the letters I receive is unwarranted. as far as the test ban treaty is concerned. Secretary McNamara has already an- nounced his intentions to ask for more honey for next year rather than less. There is, not the slightest possibility that 16507 years. The danger to our political sys only Red China, France, Albania, and tem today is probably greater from Cuba in our opposition. monetary disaster or internal disturb- Mr. President, with due regard for the ances or a continued deterioration of sincerity of those who will vote against governmental processes than it is from the partial test ban treaty and with full an enemy attack from the outside. recognition of the fact that there are The question is frequently asked about risks, particularly the risk of "euphoria," the relative strength of the United States as well as advantages involved, I will say and Russia in the various phases of nu- that since the treaty was submitted to clear weaponry both offensive and defen- committees of Congress on July 23 and sive. No one, not even Mr. Khrushchev 24, no evidence has been presented to or our own Joint Chiefs of Staff, can an- swer that question accurately without a detailed examination of data furnished by the other side, a situation which is not likely to happen. We do know, however, that neither Russian or the United States has or is likely to develop airtight defense against delivery of bombs of 1 to 50 megatons or even more. We do know the probable effect of bombs of various strength exploding at different altitudes. We do know that a 10-megaton bomb would destroy virtually all buildings within a distance of 8 miles from the point of explosion. We do know that the same explosion would reduce to cinders every human be- ing exposed within this area irrespective of race, creed, color, or station in life. We do know that a 10-megaton bomb would start fires for a distance of 30 miles from the seat of the explosion. We do know that a nuclear bomb ex- plosion would burn the retinas of every living being who happened to witness the explosion from distances of up to 500 miles depending on the altitude of the explosion, thus causing total or partial blindness. We do know that the explosion of a 10-megaton bomb would cause first-de- gree burns on any unprotected person within a distance of 35 miles, and second degree burns to a distance of 25 miles. We do know that the fallout from the explosion of a 20-megaton bomb would drift downwind for a distance of over 300 miles, sentencing all people in its path to incurable misery for such life as might remain to them. We do know-everyone of us within his own heart-that unless the nations now possessing the nuclear bomb make a determined and sincere effort to prevent its use, the time will come-and it may come quickly-when this weapon will be tested on human targets. This limited test ban treaty In Itself does not and will not prevent the use of nuclear weapons by one nation upon an- nd d to It i not i t th n e s e er. o. It will, however, serve as a faint ray of I am greatly indebted to him for what hope to the world that the nations now he has done to make the work of the possessing the bomb are well aware of its committee move along in a reasonably power to destroy the progress which efficient way. His assistance has been of mankind has made over tens of centuries vital importance in connection with and that those nations will try to prevent bringing the treaty before the Senate. I appreciate very much the great im- a holocaust on earth. Approval of the treaty will mean that portance of the service. of the Senator a dozen other nations that have the from Vermont, both in connection with means and the know-how to make nu- '-this treaty and in connection with all clear bombs will not attempt to do so. the other important business of the Sen- foreseeahle future. Costs of the Defense Not all the nations on earth will sign ate. I appreciate particularly his most "valuable service in connection with the Department have increased $8 billion in this treaty. A half dozen will refuse. :the last, 2. years and we will be very lucky The vote of the Senate will tell the treaty; and I am sure the country will, if this sharp increase does not continue. world whether the United States stands too. We have been living on borrowed with most of the nations of the earth Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator money .'arid borrowed time for many or whether we stand in company with from Arkansas. Let me say that if any Approved For Release 2004103111 CIARDP65B00383R00G??100210008-2 appropriations for defense purposes will be materially reduced by Congress in the convince me that the advantages do not far outweigh the risks. Therefore, Mr. President, I trust that we may have a nearly unanimous vote of the Senate in favor of this first short hopeful step on a long, long journey to peace. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I am glad to yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I commend most highly the sound, solid, and statesmanlike speech just delivered by the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont, the ranking Republican Mem- ber of the Senate. He is not noted for sensationalism. He is sober and hard- working. He attended the meetings of the three committees during the course of their consideration of the treaty. He always renders a distinct service to the Senate, to" his State, and to the Nation. I express to him my personal thanks for the fine speech he has made, and acknowledge that it is another of the many important contributions the dis- tinguished Senator has made during his 22 years of service in the' Senate. I commend him. Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator from Montana. I know of no one whose ap- proval I would rather have. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield? Mr. AIKEN. I am glad to yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I should like to associate myself with the statement of the Senator from Montana. During the committee's consideration of the treaty, the Senator from Vermont rendered most valuable service-as he always does. Not only did he make the motion that the treaty be reported from the committee to the Senate, but-in addi- tion, and in particular-he also made the motion that it be reported without reservation. in my opinion, that en- abled the committee to avoid a great deal of struggle, difficulty, and delay in dealing with possible reservations. Therefore, as chairman of the Foreign Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B0'0383R000100210008-2 16508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 18 guilt Is connected with the activities he has described, I plead guilty. However, I m'ilst confess that my principal interest was to have the treaty reported from the cocninittee and before the Senate, so the.Senate could take action on it, and then could proceed to the transaction of its other business. That may have beefl a selfish motive; but, at the same time, I thoroughly believe in the state ment I have made, and also in the ad- visability of obtaining overwhelming ap- proval by the Senate of the test ban treaty at as early a date as possible. Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is most fortu- nate that the Senator's personal wishes and interests happen to coincide with the {rational interest. I know of no hap- pier 'Comb ination. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield! Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, Icon- sider it a great privilege to have. heard the speech of the Senator from Vermont. I know that all of us are naturally con- cerned about our positiorf in regard to the treaty. It gives me-and I know. it gives the Senate-greater confidence and assurance to know that the Senator from Vermont, the ranking- Republican member of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, and a man of sound and practical judgment, has decided to support it. Of course, the unknown always gives cause for concern;' but the ri&tlk of nuclear war is known, and I believe it also gives the leaders of the Soviet Union cause for concern. 14r. AIKEN. Yes. I feel that the Senator from Kentucky is=-as usual- corrbct in his analysis of the situation. It is fear that prompts the opposition to the treaty; but I have no doubt that the same fear or apprehension is held by people in other countries-probably in- cluding the Soviet Union itself. I feel that we always live in the shadow of fear of some -kind. However, the fear of a nuclear war seems to transcend most of the other fears . that have been dreamed up over the centuries and dur- ing many generations. It is in the hope of taking a very small, first step toward allaying this fear and toward making it more bearable that we are supporting this partial test ban treaty. Mr. COOPER. I hope-and I am sure the Senator from Vermont does, too-- that not only will it be a first step, but it will also lead ultimately to a com- pletely enforcible ban on all nuclear testing, including testing under ground, and it also ultimately will bring to an end' the nuclear arms race. 14r. AIKEN. I share the hope of the Seri .tor from Kentucky that this is only a first step; but I fear that future steps probably will be equally as difficult, if not more so, and that they may be longer in coming to realization. . However, if we once give up hope and give up the effort to achieve a world without war-particularly, a world with- out nuclear war-we have a right to be very discouraged. I do not believe the world has given up hope. Of course, as I have said, every Senator's office has received probably from 2,000 to 10,000 communications on the subject of the test ban treaty. Pos- sibly the majority have been received from the two States in which apparently the opposition is well organized. However, I believe we find a hopeful sign in the fact that more than 190 mil- lion of the American people have not written to Senators about the treaty, and are willing to leave the decision to the Senate. Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Senate is now concluding a thorough, exhaustive debate on the ratification of the partial nuclear test ban treaty. In the back of many of our minds is the thought that if we do not do some- thing to prevent our present interna- tional atomic "dansemacabre" upon the precipice of nuclear coannihilation, one of the dancers will make the inevitable slight misstep and fall into the crater's abyss, and that one will not be immo- lated alone. It has been brought out that the So- viet Union could conceivably cheat and engage in small covert tests. Then, too, we have examined the record of the So- viets with regard to the scrupulousness with which they have honored past ob- ligations, and we have found them lacking. As opposed to these risks, however, we are presented with mounting evidence of the apparent adequacy of our present de- fense posture. Secretary McNamara has stated une- quivocally that we now have the capac- ity to absorb a full-scale nuclear attack by the Soviet Union and still destroy them in retaliation. They, too, presum- ably have a similar capacity. To put the matter in different terms, the estimated total explosive power of the combined nuclear stockpile now held by the United States and the Soviet Un- ion adds up to approximately 50, bil lion tons of TNT, which is enough to put a 10-ton bomb over the head of each hu- man being in the world. We have now the actual numerical edge in tests in that the total number of announced nuclear tests conducted by the West has been 315, while those con- ducted by the Soviet Union have been estimated at 126. Here we find the West with a numerical. superiority over the So- viet Union in testing experience. Of these totals, the West conducted 213 which emitted radiation into the atmos- phere and the Soviet Union 125, accord- ing to Western estimates. The continuous injection into the at- mosphere of the poisonous strontium 90, resulting from atomic tests, has already gone higher than we as parents, and as progenitors of yet unborn generations, can permit. The political platforms of both the Democratic and the Republican parties have called for the ending of atmospher- ic nuclear testing along the lines of the treaty we presently have under consid- eration. Specifically, the 1960 Demo- cratic platform supports "means for ending nuclear tests under workable safeguards." And the 1960 Republican platform reads "we advocate an early agreement by all nations to forgo nuclear tests in the atmosphere." The treaty upon which we are now be- ing asked to give our advice and con- sent does just what both our parties' platforms seek. In fact, not to approve it would be a breach of faith with our people. In this regard, and transcending na- tional politics, was the eloquent plea, to consent to the resolution of ratification of the minority leader, Senator DIRKSEN, who placed his honor, his principles, and his belief above limitations of partisan consideration or the possible results of mailbag pressures. There is little doubt in my mind as to the overall advantage to the United States and to mankind-for we cannot truthfully separate ourselves from man- kind-of ratifying the treaty. In the course of the debate, I have sought eon- tinously to understand the arguments of the opponents of the treaty. I do under- stand and realize these arguments are presented in good faith and. are based on points of valid criticism. Yet, I continue to believe that the benefits of ratifica- tion far outweigh rejection and I look forward gladly and proudly to voting for the treaty's rat: fication. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, in ris- ing to speak on. whether or not the Sen- ate should advise and consent to this treaty, I speak for no one but myself. I realize that I must search my mind and heart and assume the responsibility. The future of the United States of America and the hope of establishing a just and lasting peace have been my guidelines. In my opinion, every Member of, the U.S. Senate is acting with integrity and with the highest sense of patriotism. I disagree violently with some of their positions, including utterances that have been made concerning further steps to be taken. But, my challenge goes to their strategy and to the wisdom of their proposals for dealing with the Commu- nists and not to their motives. All I ask of those in the Senate and throughout the land who disagree with me is to grant to me the same recognition of honesty of purpose. I yield to no American in my dread of war and my desire for a just and last- ing peace. I served in Congress through two wars, when the draft calls were heavy and the casualty notices were numerous. .All of us have seen the relentless march of corrununism. All of us have witnessed the expansion of atheistic, imperialistic, cruel and destructive com- munism, the takeover of millions of square miles of the earth's surface and the bonding of millions of helpless peo- ple into slavery. I, too, have observed these things and I want to act in the best interests of my country above all else. The Constitutionof the United States imposes upon this Senate the power and responsibility to assist in making treat- ies. Our powers and responsibilities are not limited to ratifying the act of the Chief Executive nor can we discharge those responsibilities by merely respond- ing to world propaganda forces. ..In debating this treaty there are many points to consider. There are a few very fundamental questions that must be Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 1963 Approved For Release 2004/03/11: CIA=RD965B00383R000100210008-2 -asked. Will this treaty bring a just and enduring peace to our country and to the rest of the world? Will it lessen the strength of the United States as a force for maintaining the peace? '2'o repeat, will it aid or hinder this Nation's leader- ship in the free world's defense? Can we serve the interests of our country by embracing Russia in a solemn treaty? Will thQ Pommunists honor the treaty? Are they gther overriding considerations such as the danger of radioactive fallout so paramount as to persuade us to accept a treaty if otherwise it is not in the inter- est of the United States? , _I, too, have attended the committee hearings, both open and executive. I, too, have read secret testimony taken in committees when I was not present. I, too, have sought the wisest counsel that I can find. First, let us consider what it is that maintains the , peace, We have seen country after country go under the heel of the communist tyrants. There is a long list of them. I call attention to the cruelty, the murder, and the treachery of the Communist attack upon Hungary only a few years ago. We have witnessed -helpless people succumb to the might of the atheistic Communists. I call atten- tion to the establishment of a Communist beachhead in the Western Hemisphere in Cuba. We have read about the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion that failed, not be- cause it lacked in, hope or good inten- tions, but because it lacked the necessary military strength to make it succeed. Following World War II the leaders of our Government did collaborate with Communist Russia, An example of faith in the Communists was expressed in an interview published in Life magazine in 1943 by our Ambassador to Moscow, Mr. Joseph E. Davies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the interview be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without. objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. CURTIS. I_will not take, time, now to discuss. the utterances of a log list of well-jntentionell but mistaken people who, following World War II, clamored for us to share our atomic weapons with the Communists. Those utterances were made and everyone knows it. It remaij-fed for Winston Churchill to come to _ the, United Mates and make a .speech at a little college in Missouri. _ I believe it was Westminster College. It was there that he shocked some of the complacent people of America by using the term "Iron Curtain." He warned the West what the Communists were doing behind the Iron Curtain. Winston Churchill said the only thing that stood in the way of the Communists making all `out war against our country and his country was the possession of the atomic bomb by the United States. When. are we going to realize it will require the regeneration of the hearts of men in every country of the world to bring a just and lasting p , eace? I, too, pray and hope for that time to come, but iii the meantime I am convinced we mt(st have a. strong national defense. Until that great day comes when the ballistic missile systems. [Deleted.] That is one. At the same time we have been switching the emphasis from the manned bomber to the ballistic missile, so more and more of your deterrent posture is going to depend on this weapon system. For example, in 1959 we fad better than 2,000 bombers in the Strategic Air Com- mand, and 10 years later, in 1968, we will have some 700. We will in the meantime have added better than [deleted] ballistic missiles. Now to fill that void we have introduced the ballistic missiles. This missile has never been operationally tested all the way through from stockpile to detonation, and we have never tested such things as the vulner- ability [deleted] due to shock wave propa- gation, due to blackout, there are many voids in our knowledge as to the operational cap- abilities and vulnerabilities of this weapon system. Ia particular the RV [deleted] thermal effects, blast effects-cannot really be tested from my point of view as an operator until you test it in the nuclear environment, and as I am responsible for writing the war plans of the free world, I have to deal with facts. I have to deal with proven data, and if .too much of the data is extrapolated or theo- Tetic,_ I do not have ahigh confidence factor that I have a sound plan. We are dealing with the security of the United States, and if facts can be obtained, I want to have them. -Senator STENNIS. You enumerated several points, areas in which testing was incom- plete. Perhaps you would want to develop each of these points a little further. You say you have to extrapolate too much, and they hand you information that you are not certain of as to Its completeness. What fields are they now? Go over it again, if you will. General POWER. In all fields. We have never completely tested any of the nuclear weapons in SAC's arsenal. $en tor. STENNIS. I want it spelled out in detail, because there have been general as- surances here that everything has been done that could be done. General POWER. Let's take the bombs first. Senator STENNIS. Yes. General POWER. I have some [deleted] dif- ferent types of nuclear weapons in the Stra- tegic Air Command arsenal. None of them have been tested operationally from stock- pile to detonation. I think this is a mis- take. I think they should be tested. The only way you can prove a weapon sys- tem is to take it out of the stockpile in a random pattern and let the tactical unit take it out and detonate it. If you haven't done this, there 1s always a chance that something has happened that we won't dis- coveruntil too late. [Deleted.] The point I am making is that, unless you test the very thing that is in your arsenal you are never certain, and the stakes are so high I feel we must be certain. I would like to operationally test all my weapons. This means the missiles should be fired, and these reentry vehicles detonated in space to make sure that the warhead will go off and to test our operational factors. Senator STENNIS..I think It, is, highly im- portant that you enumerate the .problems. You started with the nuclear weapons. Just go right on down the line and detail what has not been done and how the ban on nu- clear testing would cut it off, and the extent to which it would hamper you. General POWER. We have not tested any of the operational warheads in our inventory. That includes the missiles and the bombs. Senator STENNIS. Let me interpose there. The test ban would not change our policy on that, because we are not doing it anyway. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 -CtA'-RDP65BO0383RO00100210008-2 spirit of the Prince of Peace shall rule in the hearts of men all over the earth we must have police forces to protect us from the criminals. We must have a national defense capable of resisting any attack on our country or we shall be in the gravest danger. Peace is maintained by being strong. A couple of weeks ago I appeared on a television program. A distinguished newscaster presided. He, with good in- tentions, stated "a fallacy. He said that in the past the peace had been kept through a balance of 'power. The fact is that the peace has been kept through an imbalance of power. Our military superiority has prevented the Commu- nists from attacking us. I wish that every Senator had read the testimony of Gen. Thomas S. Power before the classified portions were de- leted. He is commander in chief of our Strategic Air Command and- Direc- tor of the Joint Strategic Target Plan- ning Staff. If war were to start tomorrow, upon the shoulders of General Power would fall a greater responsibility to protect our cities and towns our men, women and our children, and' our factories, than would fall upon anyone else. In presenting General Power, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] said: General Power commands and controls the most powerful strategic striking force which has ever been assembled In the history of the world. The long-range missiles and manned bombers of SAC, in combination with our Polaris submarines, represent the very heart of our retaliatory force and of our deterrent of a catastrophic nuclear war. In the past, testing has played a vital role in the devrl.opment of the nuclear weap- on systems which are the basis of the su- periority of our strategic forces. It is essen- tial to our national security that this superi- ority be maintained in the future. Thus the crucial question with which we are con- fronted is the Impact which the proposed limitation on nuclear testing will have on the integrity and survivability of our stra- tegic retaliatory forces. As the operational commander of these forces, General Power is in a 'unique'posi- tion`to assist us in reaching correct conclu- sions on a number of troublesome questions which have arisen during the course of this inquiry. Here are some of 'the things General Power said: I don't think, it is in the best interests of the United States. That is the basic rea- son. Senator STENNIS. That is a mighty good reason, and if you will just give us the de- tails of that now, we will be glad to give you such time as you wish. General POWER. I feel that we have, mili- tary superiority now, and I feel very strongly that this has resulted in. a world that has been free from nuclear warfare. I have a lower confidence factor that we can and will maintain that military superiority under the test ban treaty than I have under a condition in which we do not have a test ban treaty. Senator STENNIS. Would you give more of the details of the reasons why it would affect us adversely. General PowER. Well, you mentioned in your opening statement one of the very im- portant reasons. There are voids in our knowledge about the vulnerability of our Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 G al POWER. I would urge that they do ft.have repeatedly requested that they do 11: Senator STENNIS. And you think that our inforihatlon in that field is Incomplete un- der 15i"esent conditions? Gerneral POWER. That is correc , senator STENNIS. And if we go into the test an agreement,, we would h? precluded from even changing our minds; Ge eral PowER.. That Is the very funda- mental first step. Now there are great voids in our knowledge on such things as [de- leted) shock wave propagation, blackout, communications, and command and control that, in my opinion, can be obtained only through atmospheric testing. In the field of high-yield weaponry, I feel that the Soviet Union now has, a technical lead as a result of their tests In 1961 and 1962. They have a lead in their weight-to- yield ratio in the big bomb categories, and I feel that we should overcome that lead. You Can only do this through testing in the atnosphere in my opinion. Some of this can be obtained in under- ground testing, but I don't think you can fully get the answers unless you explode a weapon of this size, and I am talking about yfelda above [deleted] megatons. Now is the field of clean weapons, it is of tremendous importance to everybody in this world that we get these -weapons as clean as we can so we don't hav the fallout effect which tends to prohibit their use. Thera,, if you do have to use them, they will not cause unnecessary or Indiscriminate kill- ing. -I think that, with testing in the at- mosphere, you could arrive at a'clean weap- on faster than you can in underground test- ing. We know that the Soviet Union now leads us iii, the field of weight-to-yield ratio and in the cleanliness of these high--yield weap- ons. There is evidence that they have ad- vanadd very far along the spectrum of the state'-of the art. [Deleted.] My instinct tells me that it Is to their advantage to have this test ban treaty now. [Deleted.] I just feel we have obtained our position in this world today, our military superiority, through our weaponry, through our scientists, and through testing. We coud not be in the position of talking with, confidence that we could prevent a thermonuclear war unless we were strong, and we basically got our strength through these,weapons and through testing. I just feet at the surest way to prevent war- and that is my goal, and I feel very strongly about it-is to have overwhelming strength so that it is ridiculous for anybody to even think of attacking the United States. That is wZ t it has been in the past and that is what it is today. It as unpleasant features, yes, but the surest way in my opinion of preventing a thermonuclear war is to have overwhelming strer th, and I think this is one area in which we can beat anyone. I think our science, our economy, and everything else can help us win this race. We have won it in the past, and I think we can continue to win it. But It takes the Will to do It. That is an off-the-cuff sumniatipa about, how I feel about it. I am seriously concerned about losing our military superiority, because I think that this superiority has resulted in a peaceful world as far as nuclear war is concerned, and I can't think of anything more impor- tant ,than to keep the world safe from a nucl r war I ink 1i we get into one, there will be no winners, only losers, and I think man- kind will have reached its highest plateau of stupidity if it tries to reach its aims and goals or settle its differences with nuclear weapons. However, I think that our formula to pre- vent `this has been a successful one to date, and. It is a real simple formula. We have had overwhelming military superiority to the point where it Is ridiculous for Mr.: hru- shchev to even seriously contemplate at- tacking this country. Now I maintain that it Is possible to hold this type of lead, and that is what I recommend. Senator JAcsoN. In other words, you feel that peace depends not on the maintenance of a balance of,power, but a maintenance of an imbalance of power in favor of the West. General PowER. That is correct. Senator JACKSON. Over the Soviets. General POWER. Words mean nothing. Our record speaks for itself. The world knows we are not going touse these weapons to bully' people, to accomplish any of our external goals, or to take over any territory. They are in mature, moral hands. I think we should maintain this type of superiority in those mature, moral hands. Mr. President, the testimony of the Joint Chiefs of Staff condemns this treaty. They. state absolutely it has military disadvantages. I recommend that Senators read their entire testi- mony. We must heed the enumeration of the military disadvantages to this country as stated by the Chiefs of Staff. I asked the Chiefs of Staff, If this treaty went into effect, would it lessen the cost of our defense? The reply was that it would increase the cost of our derense. One of the greatest patriots I know, a soldier, a man who has given much of his lifetime In defense of this country and in defense of liberty, is a distin- guished native of my State, Gen. Alfred C. Wedemeyer. Before asking to have printed in the body of the REcoe.n his letter to me, I want to read a few sig- nificant portions. Speaking of the mili- tary, he says: We have fought and won two wars at great sacrifice in lives and treasure, In each case we have lost the peace, primarily be- cause our political leaders and their repre- sentatives were naive, trusting, and inept. The Versailles Treaty, Yalta, Teheran , Pots- dam, Korea and Cuba were the products of political minds, not military. I commend to the Senate General Wedemeyer's letter, and I ask unani- mous consent that it appear at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the letter -was ordered to be printed in the Rs:CORD, as follows: BOYDS, MD., September 17, 1963. Hon. CARL T. CURTIS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: I gladly comply with your request for views concerning the test ban treaty now under consideration in the U.S. Senate. As you know, I have spent most of my mature life In the military service, striving to im- prove knowledge and to acquire experience in connection with the security of our coun- try, both military and economic. One of your colleagues across the aisle a few months back expressed the opinion that military leaders do not have the capability nor the responsibility of considering economic and political factors. We have fought and won two wars at great sacrifice in lives and treasure. In each case we have lost the ace, primari:ly be- cause our political leaders and their repre- sentatives were naive, trusting, and inept. The Versailles Treaty, Yalta, Teheran, Pots- dam Korea and Cuba were the products of political minds, not military. I read in today's paper that the same Sen- ator mentioned above now suggests that we "emulate the seagull and devise suitable forms of ceremonial combat in which no one is hurt." If the Members of Congress take seriously such an ill-advised suggestion by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, the much discussed test ban treaty should be referred to the American people in a national referendum. It is my con- sidered judgment that this treaty presents the gravest problem that has confronted our Nation in many years. If Congress were to be influenced in this vital matter by Senator FULDRIGHT's levity-the seagulls may not be hurt but millions of Americans would be at the mercy of Khrushchev and his henchmen In the Kremlin. While commanding troops in combat, I frequently visited the wounded. They would often ask me, "Why are we here in this far- away place? Wh ,t are we fighting for?" I explained that we were fighting to protect our rich heritage of freedom and to make available to less fortunate peoples similar opportunities for individual freedom and the dignity of man.. My point is simply this. CARL. If U.S. Senators taunt military lead- ers and make light of a terrible threat to the security of the United States, what is there left to defend? Every sensible person would be happy to support a disarnu,ment program. However before this could be done safely, of course, we must eliminate the reason for the exist- ence of armies, r_avies, and air forces. In American communities where people speak the same language and have the same cus- toms we must maintain restraining forces to protect those who would obey laws against those who would violate them. In this test ban situation we are not dealing with people who speak our language, literally or figura- tively. The leadership of the Soviet Union has arrogantly boasted since the Communist revolution more than 40 years ago that they will communize the world. Their program is being carried oat by a disciplined, highly trained membership fanatically dedicated to victory. If they are unsuccessful in condi- tioning peoples' minds to accept step-by-step surrender through the employment of prop- aganda, economic pressures, and Machiavel- lian maneuvers, then they invariably resort to violent and diabolical means. The President has described the test ban treaty as a first; step toward disarmament. This has great appeal to the American peo- ple. However, in the present international environment we must retain overwhelming military strength and realistic safeguards. The cost in materials and dollars of such a program would be high, but we would be providing realistic protection for our most precious commoc.ity-American lives and freedoms. A considerable amount of money could be found in the foreign aid program which presently is directly or Indirectly strengthening the sinews of our enemy. The Soviet Union and her satellites con- tinue ruthless aggressions and disregard of treaties and obligations. They will only honor agreements when advantage accrues to them. President Franklin Roosevelt may have had some excuse for his naivete in dealing with this international conspiracy but since his time, through the valiant ef- forts of civic-minded patriots and Members of Congress, the complete record of Commu- nist perfidy has been made readily available to political and military leaders and to the American body politic. Recently the Presi- dent with commendable fervor explained to the Nation that Mr. Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister, had lied to him about the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. This is the same Gromyko who recently initiated the test ban treaty which the President is now urging you and your fellow Congress- men to ratify in good faith. I do not agree with Secretary of Defense McNamara or the Joint Chiefs of Staff if they accept parity with the Soviet Union in Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For Release 2004/0311,t-,4 {A.RDR6 0038 8000106110008-2 i heed to what Senator RUSSELL has to say ssi e ense. These about this treatry. gress shall provide for the common de- claims may be empty boasts, but for us fence, to disregard them may be a deadly peril. Senator' RUSSELL is not a maverick. We face many problems in our defense, The recent book by the Russian, Marshal He loves his political party as I love but I do not happen to hold to the belief Sokolovsky, entitled "Military Strategy," mine. He feels an attachment to the in- that certain things are impossible in the leaves no doubt about Russian determi- dividuals,in his State whose political be- field of science and invention, natioli-on missile defense. liefs agree with, hi just as I, feel an at- The President has stated that missile It is to be noted that Secretary Mc- chment, t0 the people who adhere to defense is beyond our reach. A few days Namara did not say that our missile de- tile same, political principles as I do and later Secretary McNamara, using a more lenses will be actually deployed. He who work n,nselfishly time, after -time to positive approach, explained that even mentioned no date; he made no com- elect me to this office. It was not easy without the experiments prohibited by mitment. Will lack of atmospheric ex- for Senator RussEL . to oppose his admin- the test ban treaty we will be able to perminentation induce enough doubts in istration. He spoke from deep conic- gain the information needed to plan our our minds to tip the scales away from Lion from the heart and from a desire to missile defer ethesiF ~~;stag safety?? The, Russjanslay try to build o V a y new surround- they have missiles, intercontinental mis- complete its destruction. Experience in ings and when any one of them quickly siles, aimed at us? Does the Congress all these matters is badly needed. and glibly says "Yes" to every query pro- have. a responsibility to strive for the The Russians have performed many flounced to him concerning a matter surest defense against a missile attack? more atmospheric tests in the missile age proposed, by his superior it causes me to I hope that I am not termed obsolete than has the United States. The Soviets wonder. I could not do it. I do not when I quote from the Constitution of have claimed that they have solved the think anyone else could. I want to give the United States It says that the Con- problem of m 0 d f . s ac that they are compatible. taro a working superiority in this field. If May I also pay tribute to the Honor- The President did not say that a par- the comparative strengths are balance, delicate balance, the leaders of the h;remlin would able JOHN STENNIS, of Mississippi, the tial defense against missiles is impos- be ed,tQ to risk. war. Chairman of the Preparedness Investi-_ sible,, We,shoulld interpret his statement i urge you in behalf of the people of the gating Subcommittee of the Armed Serv- as the reasonable- assertion that corn- State of, Nebraska which, you so ably repre- ices Committee, and all the other mem plete defense against a Russian missile sent, In behalf of all our countrymen, and bers who joined with him in their schol- attack is not likely to succeed. in fact, in behalf of mankind to vote against any report. These men are experts in In fact, missile defense is an extra- the test ban treat in its present form. I matters of defense. They are not seek- ordinarily difficult task. Missiles move strongly urge the Introduction of an iron- ing partisan advantage. They do not with speeds exceeding that of sound, or clad reservstlqa inspection llic System. will, provide a tool- proof want the United States to adopt the of the fastest plane or bullet. Several inspection Without such reservation, it is my judgment that the test wrong course. They are not warmongers. missiles may arrive in a single salvo. ban treaty, if approved, would unacceptably I would like to list the disadvantages of They may be accompanied by dozens of jeopardize not only the military security of this treaty enumerated in the report of decoys. We must discriminate between the United States bit also of the tea world, Senator STENNIS-.,_and his committee. the real missiles and the decoys, and A. C. WzomuEYEg. They are as follows: .,then destroy all of the "hot" missiles. Mr. CURTIS. Ur, President, I read in . First. The United States probably will All of this must be done before the mis- the newspapers that the Secretary of 'be unable to duplicate Soviet achieve- siles reach a distance within a few miles Air was scheduiesl to attend, a reception ments in very high yield weapon tech- of their target. A completely satisfac- of, the Air Force Association,, a group nology. tory solution is unlikely indeed. dedicated-, tq improving our Air-Force, Second. The United States will be un- Secretary McNamara pointed out -on and maintaining it at its very best, noable to acquire necessary data on the ef- the other hand that many of the vital for aggression but for peace. The Sec- fects of very high yield atmospheric problems of missile defense can be solved retary of Air canceled his appearance. explosions. without atmospheric testing. We will be Why? - Because they had the audacity Third. The United States will be un- able to develop the radar needed to ob- as free Americans to express ai}, opinion able to acquire data on high altitude nu- serve the incoming objects. We can on a matter pending before the Senate clear weapons effects. study the fine points which may permit of the Tjnited States, What kind, of no- Fourth. The United States will be un- us to distinguish a bomb from a decoy. tice is that to others who might have able to determine with confidence the We may use underground tests to de- an honest disagreement? What kind of performance and reliability- of any ABM velop the best anti-missile explosive. notice is that to other organizations that system developed without benefit of at- But. there are some things we caflnot might want to assemble and discuss a mospheric operational system tests. do. We cannot, test our defense setup vital public question? What kind of no- Fifth. The United States will be un- against a simulated attack. We cannot tice is that to Members of the Senate able to verify the ability of its hard-, build up the body of experience needed in who might disagree with the wisdom of ened underground second-strike missile- practical matters of some complexity. this treaty? systems to survive close-in high yield would we dare to build our Navy without Speaking of the defense strength of nuclear explosions. having ever launched a steamship? this country as a means of preserving Sixth. The United States will be un- Would we have confidence in our fighter the peace, I want to pay my respects to able to verify the ability of its missile planes if experience with them. were the Honorable RICHARD RUSSELL, the dis- reentry bodies under defensive nuclear restricted to tests in a wind tunnel? tinguished and experienced Senator attack, to survive and to, penetrate to the Specifically we should know 'in what from the State of Georgia. He is the target without the, opportunity to test way our own defensive explosions inter- Chairman of the Armed Forces Commit- nose cone and warhead designs in a nu- fere with each other and with the ob- .tee. Does -not his. 30 \ years of experi- clear environment under dynamic re- servation of other missiles in the same ence on that committee~ and on a prede- entry conditions. salvo. We are hunting a pack of wolves cessor defense cgmtmittde qualify him to Seventh. The treaty will provide the and all the wolves must be destroyed. express all opinion? hoes not wisdom Soviet Union an Opportunity to equal We are using ammunition, the flash of compel us to, pay heed to what he says? U.S. accomplishments in submegaton which may blind the hunter. Since *,.A. ussEi?Lhas served on Abe de- weapon technology. We cannot make a direct hit on each Tense committees,,, 40 Secretaries of De- Eighth. The treaty will deny to the incoming missile. We must use nuclear fense and of the separate branches of the United States .a valuable source of infor- explosives as a defense against nuclear service have collie and gone. There mation on Soviet nuclear weapons ca- warheads. Such nuclear explosives can have been 25 Secretaries come and go pabilities. kill from a distance. But what distance? since he has been chairman of the com- Does anyone doubt the great and grow- Do we need to vaporize the incoming ob- mittee. Ing strength of the Soviet Union? It is ject, or will lesser damage suffice? If the Many fine men are called to. serve as not limited to a manned air force and surface of a missile is damaged, its fast Secretary of Defense. They come from submarines. Does anyone doubt that passage through the atmosphere may +11 private life int + CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE, 16511. ,the development of nuclear weapons, It Is serve this country. I, for one, am not ments contradictory? We must assume my belief that we must generate and main- going to brush his statement id ApprovectF* Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RD.P65B00383R000100210008.2 16512 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 up their defenses and may well- succeed, Is it our duty to allay their fears with environmental hazard. Benzpyrene, for in-- while we may never give missile defense promises? Or do we have a duty to do stance, was discovered in the early 1930's to a fulltrial. our very best to ascertain- the truth of be a powerful cancer-producing agent in It may well be that a massive Russian these fears? Mich has been said about mice. Combustion of petroleum by autos yields more than enough benzpyrene to pro- attack will penetrate any defense we can the fear of injury to human beings from duce a cancer hazard. In. large American install. But we may parry any small radioactivity that occurs in fallout from cities, there is so much benzpyrene in the attack that the Chinese can mount dur- a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere. air that it settles on windowsills in measur- ing the 20th century. We are worried Good people have been concerned about able quantities. But there has been no about proliferation. We can and we it. Designing people have used it as a scientific investigation of the hazard of should defend ourselves against its con- propaganda weapon. Fear of radioac- benzpyrene at low doses. sequences. Missile defense may turn out tivity has been preached to the masses "I presume that we want to save thou- sands of lives in this country every year to be the correct move with which to in the far corners of the earth. and we could just abolish the manufacture of counter Chinese nuclear power. Many have spoken and written about automobiles and go back to riding horses," The announcement of the test ban was it, and I have done my best to read the senator BOVRKE HIonENLOOPER, of Iowa rug- followed by the President's pessimistic testimony and secure the opinions of the gested facetiously in one committee hearing evaluation of our missile defense. We best authorities, While there is dis_ on fallout. "It seems to have struck a bal- must hope that these two facts are not agreement on the subject as to the degree ance in the minds of people that transports- related. If our interest in test cessation of this danger, there is nothing in the tion is important and we keep making auto- diverts our effort from missile defense, hearings to give us-sufficient reason tothousamobiles, people keep getting killed by the nds on the highway every' year. We then the test ban will not have served advise and consent to a treaty on this are all sad about that our security. basis. On the east coast, the annual radiation We must bend oui" efforts toward an After I had read the material of one from natural sources is about 0.1 roentgen early and successful plan for missile de- of the top scientists in the United States, per year, while Denver and other large Colo- fense. The ban will certainly impede our I sought a conference with him. We radan cities get about twice that amount effort and this fact alone is a-strong argu- talked and we exchanged some corre- from natural background sources. Denver ment against the ban. The Russians spondence. I asked him to find for me is expanding despite this health hazard. And New York reports may well be ahead of us in missile de- an accurate statement on this radioac- a higher rate of leukemia than Colorado, presumably from causes other fense. If so, we shall have a difficult tivity problem written in layman's lan- than radiation. time catching up with them. This is an guage which I would understand, which In southern Illinois, where the drinking even more telling argument against the at the same time was scientifically ac- water contains unusual amounts of radium, test ban treaty. . curate. He refefred me to the book en- persons store about 10 times as much radium Our emotions have been aroused by titled "Nuclear Ambush," by Earl H. in their bones as those living in Chicago. s those who run away from the facts and Voss, a careful writer and a distinguished bone-cancer rates so$far detected. ce in the talk about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and Washington newspaperman. The book People living in Albuquerque, N. Mex., an- then say that I am for something that was published in 1962. This scientist nually absorb much more radiation In their everyone condemns. Let us face the directed my attention to certain pages mile-high homes than do people in Wash- facts. The defense against a nuclear of Mr. Voss' book. I want to read what ington, D.C. The excess is greater than that missile attack is dependent upon testing he has to say: received by Wast..ington residents from all in the atmosphere, and we are proceed- This excursion into the basic science of bomb-test fallout to date. Yet most of the ing to tie our hands in that field. I ask, radiation has shown that the hazard of nu- citizens" of Albuquerque continue to reside clear test fallout is triflng-3 to 5 percent- there. who is it that is concerned about the compared to background radiation hazards If the incidence of lung cancer from ciga- terror of a nuclear attack? rettes is assumed to be linear, that is, de-the The missile-atomic age has moved our distorted world the accepts thinking without has become can be How pending on the size of dose, as leukemia is country into the front line of a possible made clear by comparing fallout with other assumed to be linearly proportional to fall- A hazards, using some popular statistical tech- out, one scientist has calculated that two war. e treaty that weakens our missile cigarettes per year can produce as much lung ni ues. fila r def nses,our our c citieties, sity and d our our Over the past 20 years, in the 'United q cancer as fallout can produce leukemia. military defenses, Using the same statistical technique, pol- homes, and a , there have been six fatal accidents button of the city air an can be regarded as a and a small number of injuries to :atomic I call attention to the words of one of energy workers from ionizing radiation. For comparable hazard. A few hours spent in the country's most distinguished citizens mos7, of these 20 years automobile accidents the city by country folks would. produce lung the same extent as fallout produces on the necessity of military strength as have been causing more than 30,000 deaths lecancer to ukemia. an instrument of preventing war and per year. But each of the 4 radiation ac- It would be rash to claim that small radia- o the peace. I want to quote to cide ats that caused 6 deaths among atomic tion doses have no effect on humans in in- you workers has received worldwide pub- and leukemia. But it you u what Aden. Lewis Strauss had to say itchy; the fact that over 100 nuclear-energy creasing bone cancer aboutthit. He said' workers have been killed in automobile acci- would seem reasonable to conclude that if May I be so -bold, in conclusion, as to call dents alone during the same period has gone there is any increase in the incidence of to mind a fact repeatedly experienced and unnoticed. these diseases because of fallout, it is so then forgotten through the generations. Be- Smokestacks belch millions of tons of acid, slight as to be unnoticeable when compared cause civilized man abhors war, he Is at- silicone, beryllium, lead, and arsenic-all with other suspected causes of bone cancer tracted by any apparently reasonable pro- widely suspected to be cancer agents--while and leukemia. posal that is labeled "peace." scientists are sifting the air for faint traces The directly proportional or linear theory Too often, however, and too late, a pact of radioactive fallout, can be applied to other harmful phenomena hailed by a hopeful majority as signaling Living in a brick house gives a person 20 in modern societ: . "peace In our time" actually turns out to be times the radiation dose one gets from fall- One's life expectancy can be reduced. about a first step on the path to disaster. out. But world attention has been concen- 9 years by smoking a pack of cigarettes a In the past, It has been only our strength trated on limiting the strontium 90, not on day, according to one statistical calculation which has kept the peace. For many years, finding a substitue for bricks. There is no based on tbg linear theory. This is equiva- our strength will be our surest, perhaps our known case of moving from a brick house lent to shortening one's life by one.hour for pn . assufance of peace. to a. frame house to avoid radioactivity. each cigarette smoked. Luminous-dial wrist watches give off as A sedentary job instead of one involving Many well intentioned and well in- much as 10 times the radiation dose that exercise reduces life expectancy by 5 years, ;formed people have fears about this fallout produces. compared to the 1 to 2 days life-shortening treaty. When I use the term "fear," I Science suspects automobile exhausts, as due to worldwide fallout. Being 10 percent use it in its connotation as relating to be- it suspects fallout, of producing cancer. But overweight costs one a year and a half. Liv- ing prudent and not id any sense indicat- no one has suggested declaring a more- tag in the city instead of in the country re- ing cowardice. Will anyone deny that trohnn on automobile transportation, or duces life expectancy by 5 years; eo does such fear exists in the minds of many even making a multi-million-dollar investi_ remaining unmarried. Senators? Millions of Americans fear gation of auto exhausts. The point here is that it can. be misleading Principally because of the fallout problem, in the extreme to assume that one suddenly this treaty. Many members of the science has been stimulated to learn much discovered factor, like fallout, is the sole Armed Forces who were not called to more about radiation as a cause of cancer cause for some change picked at random testify have privately expressed grave and. other health problems than it knows from a whole spectrum of causes and fears about this treaty. about almost any other occupational or changes. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 P-pproved For?48 Release.2004/Q P DP65B0038 0% 01 Qp48-2 GQNGRESSTQ. 4E. REWJW ? $EN 1 TE Nor cAi it be considered completely valid to conteaq,,that itll mutations are bast. Stu- dents of. evolutlon_ say that it was genetic mutation-thousands of years ago, when the natural background level of radiation pre- sumably was much higher than it is today- which produced man in his present form. It can only b_ said tl at.mutations are neither all significant nor all bad. As moreA?is learned about cancer, doubts are incroaping that low doses of radiation produce noticeable or significant effects. Both cancer ?and lqukemia are soipetimes produced by indirect methods not involving a direct, hit by a radioactive particle or ray on a human cell. Many have assumed that radioactivity makes a direct hit on a single cell and starts a chain reaction of cancerous cells,. If two mutationg.,instead of one were found to be required to produce cancer, however, then instead of 100,00Q cases of leukemia produced over the centuries by fallout, there might be as few as 100 cases, over millennia. The theory that cancer is caused by a single mutation that gives rise to a growing colony of cancer cells was,,in vogue some years ago .but is passing out of fashion. Scientists advancing the proyortional theory in re- lation to fallout have been "almost exclu sively * * * quite unfamiliar" with recent Add to these difficulties the imprecise measurements of the fallout hazard, that are possible with present techniques, and there develops a wide 'range of uncertainty, mainly on the side of doubt as to whether there is any health hazard in test fallout at all. Fall- out doses are so low that they cannot be used on mice, As has been noted earlier, millions or billions of mice would have to be bred in laboratories before any genetic effects would be. noticeable from ev n such relatively high doses of radiation as 10 roent- gens. "Hot spots," or clusters of radioactivity from tests could develop in populated areas, i. but in experience since 1945, there is no re- corded case of harm to human or animal life. Most scientists feel that while past testing *s Aot resented a health hazard, big mega- ton explosions o the order of magnitude exploged by the Soviet Union in-'1961 and 1962 could eventually accumulate fallout hazards of serious proportions. Heavy test- ing in the atmosphere is not a realistic pros- pect, even after the Soviet series of 1961 and 1962, however. The United. States has sig- nified its intention of confining the great proportion, if not all, of its future tests un- derground, where there will be no radioactive fallout hazard. The greatest hazard might come from newly emerging nuclear powers if they de- veloped dirty weapons. Regulation of their atmospheric testing could become an issue in the next decades, How did, the unrealistic fear of fallout get such a grip on the world? A rather detailed study of the test ban's history shows there were many forces at work, some Informed and some uninformed. Whether the treaty is finalized or not the United States will proceed to, do as much testing as possible underground and it may well be assumed that we will make further advances in producing clean bombs. However, a treaty that will completely prohibit testing in the atmosphere would seriously hinder our national defense.' At the same time the in Rumania and Bulgaria. has not been done. Then we have had the national lessen the radioactive fail- I now go to Poland. In 1632, on July 25, peace treaties with Hungary again and Oiit fro onzigners such as Red China, Red Russia signed an agreement that there Rumania .and Bulgaria, also violated. would be no aggression of Red Russia on whose oil is ,wz l be dirty bombs, nor Mr. President (Mr. MCGOVERN in the will it lessen radioactive fallo. Poland and not by b on Red Russia. qt ,Caused We all remember this is stab in the back on chair), the Senator from Ohio closed his by treaty breakers. September 17, 1939, when Poland was fight- recitation of events by saying: Mr. President, can we trust Red RuS- Ing Germany on the west and Red Russia Now, may I ask, Mr. Secretary, which is sia? We here in ? exercising our treaty- attacked Poland on the east. the last agreement that Red Russia has Approved'Fb- Release 2004/03/11 DiA-RDP85BOO, 383R0001002100,08-2 making power are not acting for our- i now go to the United states. in 1933 selves. We are acting for the United when Red Russia was begging the United States of America, its people, its insti- States to establish trade relations with Rus- tutions, its future. sia, just as Kadar is now doing, and Litvinov Just who signed this treaty for the wrote a letter to our Government committing himself that on Russian soil no agency would Russians? It was the Soviet Foreign be permitted to exist contemplating intrud- Minister, Mr. Gromyko. About 11 ing communism upon other nations of the months ago, Mr. Groff iyko went to the world. In violation of that Litvinov letter White House and. told the President undoubtedly about which you know, the that the Russian Communists had no Comintern was in existence and they were missiles in Cuba. The facts were the attempting to communize the world. whole country was terrified to learn that No. 10, Finland: There was an agreement en- missiles were there pointed at a large that before Russia and Finland ever en- gaged in war that the issue would be sub- portion of the United States. mitted to arbitration, and that in no event On October 22, 1962, the President, would resort be made to war until 3 months 11 in justified outrage, described the bare- after the report of the arbitrators. On No- faced deceit to which he had been sub- vember 26, 1939, the Soviet Government at- jected. Before the whole world the tacked Finland. President branded Mr. Gromyko's state- -I-now come to Hungary of 1956.ry When ment and Imre Nagy Would I be regarded as naive to in- was in charge, Red Russia said, "We will l remove the Red Rus- quire, when a spiritual regeneration and sian_ troops. Pravda will tell the story." rebirth, took ' place in Andrei Gromyko,. The story was carried throughout the United the Soviet Foreign Minister? Before States, but while we were relying upon that we trust murderers, thieves, and liars in promise they were bringing in their tanks our private dealings, we should inquire and their guns and their military men. whether they have changed. Do we No. 12, German reunification; On July 23, have any less responsibility in protect- 1955, the Foreign Ministers of the Govern- ments of France, the United Kingdom, the country? United States, and Red Russia stipulated, Mich has been written and said about ?the, heads..9f government have agreed, that the broken promises of the Russian settlement of the German question shall be Communists. One of the most concise by means of a free election. That was re- statements on this subject appears in pudiated and broken. the hearings. The recitation was made We now come to China, No. 13. In the al- by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, liance between the Republic of China and [Mr. EI. I want to read it to the Union of Red Russia, they agreed to work together in close and friendly collaboration the Senate: after the. coratug of peace following World I want to recite here Russia's conduct of War II, and to act. .according to the prin- the past. I begin on February 2, 1920, when ' ciples of mutual respect for their cover- it made separate peace treaties with Estonia, eignty. That treaty was broken. .Latvia, and Lithuania, recognizing the inde- Then we come to the very significant Pots- pendence and autonomy of these countries dam agreement on Germany. It was and renouncing voluntarily and forever all promised that Germany would not be rights of Russia over these people. On June scalped and denuded of all of its economy. 16, 1940, In the face of that treaty, Soviet The signatories to that promise kept it ex- .troops occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithu- cept Red Russia, and it carried out everything ania. . _it possibly could, causing us to pour huge I go to Iran. There was a tripartite alli- sums of money into Germany to reestablish ance on January 29, 1942, to which Red Rus- the economy. There were other commit- sia was a signatory, and it promised to with- ments made in the Potsdam agreement that draw its forces from Iranian territory. In were broken. .1945 Red Russia equipped the rebels with I now come to the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, Soviet arms and Red army uniforms. Iranian which is significant. The Kellogg-Briand forces. were neutralized by Red army troops. Treaty outlawed war as an instrument of In January of 1946 Iran appealed to the national policy. The Red army invaded United Nations charging the Soviet Union Manchuria on October 12, 1929, 1 year after with violating the agreement and interfer- it promised to outlaw war. Here we are ing with its internal affairs, and nothing was sort of outlawing the nuclear tests. I won- done about it._ der how long we can rely on that. I now go to Yalta. We heard so much about it. In the Yalta agreement Red Rus- sia, the United States, and the United King- dom agreed to assist liberated people to form Yet, Mr. President, we hear Senators beg Russia for a pact to outlaw war. The Senator from Ohio also said: interim government authorities broadly rep- Japanese war prisoners: It was agreed by resentative of all democratic elements in the Red Russia that it would return those pris- population and pledged to the earliest estab- oners. It still hasn't done it. lishment through free elections, and I want Korea, item No. 17: It was agreed on De- to repeat that, free elections, and the right of cember 27, 1945, there shall be set up a ' self-determination, of governmen$s're"spore provisional'Torean democratic government. sive to the will of the people. Now, the There shall be a joint commission to provide violations: In Hungary, acting through the a four-power trusteeship of Korea for a Hungarian Communist Party and its own period up to 5 years. From the very begin- agencies and armed forces in Hungary, Red ning, the Russian representative refused to Russia suppressed the will of the Hungarian collaborate and to act in pursuance to that people by installing the minority Communist agreement. dictatorship and denied Hungary funda- No. 18, the return of German prisoners of ,_.r 16514 Approved phere, but also to refrain from carrying out any other nuclear explosion. Thus, the treaty not only will put an end to great portions of our peacetime use of atomic energy, but it also raise a serious question about the use of nuclear explo- sions to preserve the peace. In case of aggression or threatened aggression against us or one of our allies, our hands will be tied. The assumption that when a state of war exists, we shall not be bound by the treaty could result in a ne- gation too late to prevent war. An instance of the capability of supe- rior weapons to preserve the peace, save lives, and at the same time prevent the extension of the subjugation of free peo- ples, occurred in July 1958. It was then that President Eisenhower ordered the landing of troops in Lebanon. The land- ing was made; there was no loss of life; and the Russian Communists did not dare interfere. The mission was accom- plished because other branches of our defense system were poised with our su- perior weapons to strike whenever and wherever necessary. If we solemnly agreenot to carry out any nuclear explosion, a mission similar to the one to Lebanon could not be car- ried out by us. The strength of the aggressive power of countries in which human life its not valued lies in their millions and millions of men. The strength of the defensive power of countries such as ours, in which human life is valued, lies in their superior weapons. It is commonly said the United States can withdraw from this treaty any time it wants to on 90 days' notice. The treaty carries no such provision. The treaty provides in article 4 that we have the right to withdraw from the treaty if we decide that extranordinary events, related to the subject matter of the -treaty, have jeopardized the supreme in- terests of our country. These extraor- dinary events must be related to the sub- ject matter of this treaty. In other words, they have to be related to nuclear testing. Extraordinary events of aggres- sion, or subversion, or a Communist takeover of more countries in the West- ern Hemisphere by conventional weapons would not be related to nuclear explo- sions. In that case we are still bound by the treaty. It is not only the use of our weapons that keeps the peace, but the ability to use them-the readiness to use them-and at this point we tie our hands. The late John Foster Dulles, an able and distinguished Secretary of State, said before his death in 1959: Since a treaty is what the Russians want, it wouldn't be difficult to come up with one which would look good on the surface. We could include in it all the fuzzy language of diplomacy-and believe me, I know some of the phrases-and present it to the world as a great achievement for peace. All of this would result in a relaxation of world ten- sions, generate a feeling of international goodwill, and. probably elect a Republican President in 1960. But we're not going to do it. If we signed such a pact with the Soviets, there would develop a tremendous pressure to cut back on our defenses, reduce the size of our Armed Forces, and curtail our armaments. And we'd have only the word of the Russians that they were doing the same. Our NATO, SEATO, and other alliances would be endangered, perhaps to the point of deterioration. As a result, within a few years we could be a sit- ting duck for the Communists to pick off whenever they felt the time was ripe. Is this treaty a part of the Commu- nists' great design for world domina- tion? Is it a propaganda weapon to force the hand of the United States and to cause our people and the Congress to slumber? The Joint Chiefs of Staff cer- tainly have warned against complacency. Why was this treaty not allowed to be completed pursuant to the constitutional processes of the principal signers before it was submitted to all the nations of the world to sign? Something over 90 na- tions have already signed. Was this pro- cedure followed to pressure the United States and the U.S. Senate into a diffi- cult position to reject or amend the treaty? When we have a parade of nations not possessing a popgun, an. air rifle, or a cherry bomb, coming in and solemnly agreeing that they will not set off a nu- clear explosion. in the atmosphere, there is something about such procedure that is tainted with hypocrisy. It would have been a simple matter to have a treaty considered and finalized by the principal parties, who are atomic powers, and then after the entire t:reatymaking process was completed permit other countries to join in, but that was not done. We hear much talk about; world pub- lic opinion. I have respect for world public opinion, but I try to remember that not everything appearing as world public opinion i:; such. With a few dol- lars a troublemaker can journey to the capital city of a foreign country and hire some kids to carry placards, parade in front of the American Embassy and shout falsehoods. Such an event then is broadcast to the world through the news media and we are supposed to interpret it as world public opinion. It is propa- ganda pure and simple. It is manufac- tured. It is managed. The treaty itself makes reference to further steps. The proponents of this treaty have said that it is only a, step. There will be mare. What are these next steps? Will one of the future steps be to compel stalwart and honorable Uncle Sam to march to Moscow and sign a non- aggression pact" America is not an ag- gressor nation. We have no aggressive intentions. Our money and our might have been spent unselfishly for other countries. American boys have died not alone for this Country but for the defense of many countries. We were the, victor in World War l: and World War II but did we demand territory? Is there any- one in the Chamber who feels that the United States must renounce its past and sign an agreement not to commit aggres- sion? What would. be the effect of the Rus- sian Communists signing a nonaggres- sion pact? They have signed many non- aggression pacts before, all of which have been broken. Unless they Change, their signature on a nonaggression pact can not be depended. upon. But, that is only half of the s'ory. When great powers enters into a nonaggression pact, it is For Release 2004703/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 violated? I have in mind the Cuban com- mitment that we would have the right to inspect and ascertain whether the missiles were removed. Am I correct in that or not? Secretary RusH. That was a basis for the exchange, basis of the exchange between the President and $hrushchev during the week beginning October 22. Senator LAUSCHE. That promise was not kept. Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir. As you recall, Castro would not accede to that. Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. The commitment was made" that neutral nations would be permitted to go in and see whether the mis- siles were removed. That commitment was not executed, is that correct? Secretary Rvsx. That is correct, sir, but there were certain alternative arrangements that were made, as you remember. Senator LAUSCHE. I have a letter here from the State Department saying that we are not bound by the promise not to invade or any of the other promises that we made because the commitment of Khrushchev was not kept to allow us to inspect. I agk you, in the face of this fragmentary recitation of breaches of commitments, if we are to Judge Red Russia in the future by what it has done in the past, what can Owe expect? High officials have openly stated they expect the Russians to cheat on this treaty. There is no reason to doubt their word. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] publicly admitted that he. did not. support the treaty on the basis that he trusted the Russians. If that be the case, what safe- guards do we have? . Secretary Rusk stated in the hearings: The original position of the Soviet Union in these discussions was that a withdrawal clause was not necessary, because a sovereign state could, in any event, denounce a treaty. :As- a matter of fact, that provision is in their Constitution. The whole history of Soviet actions proves that they claim the right-which they have repeatedly exercised-to junk a treaty, not on 90 days' notice, not on 1 'day's notice not on 5. minutes' notice, but without 1 sec- ond of notice; Earlier in my remarks, I quoted the Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying that if this treaty were put into effect, our de- fense would cost more. One of the rea- sons is that it will cost more to test underground and to establish all over `the world stations to check on what nu- clear developments take place in Com- munist Russia. Many of those plans of detection are still on paper. The money has not been appropriated, and they are years away. The hope that the United States could readily, and effectively resume atmos- pheric testing, if the Communists vio- lated the treaty, is not sustained by the record. When the Communists broke the testing moratorium in 1961, some time passed before we could test. When our tests were made, they were hurried and unprepared for, and the knowledge gained fell far short of that desired. The treaty itself is replete with ambj- guity, uncertainty, and undefined lan- guage. Its preamble refers to additional steps, but does not define them. The treaty uses terms that never before have been used in treaties. If we enter into this treaty, we shall bind ourselves not only to refrain from testing in the atmos- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved For.Release 2004/03/11 CIA-I DP65B00383RO00 Q0210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -'SENATE based on the premise that they may keep the territory already taken. This would wipe out all hope for the millions who ' today live under Communist slavery. It would freeze and, make permanent the status quo. One might say that such a nonaggression pact would never be drawn, _ t Say to him, suppose it is and suppose it is presented to this country under the same .conditions and,proced- uresas this treaty is presented. Many people, have argued that the. Senate should advise and consent to this treaty because refusing to do so now will create an unfavorable image. Would not that same problem exist if a nonaggression pact should come before us? Red China has not signed this treaty and would not observe .it if she did. Yet Red China may be the one aggressor na tiori emerging as a nuclear power. ' We are askedEto sign this treaty without any provisions to inspect nuclear, develop- ments in that vast interior of,Red.China. .Many prudent individuals believe that in case of war against the United. States, ,Communist Russia and Communist China would join forces. Certainly we should not risk die future of this coun- try on the hypothesis that they, will not stand together., In recent months Red China and Red Russia have entered into certain treaties and I want to call attention to them. The newsletter of the United Nations Association of the Republic of China, published in Taiwan, June 1963, on page 15: PEIPING AND MOSCOW, SIGN SCIENCE AND TECH- NOLOGICAL CdOPERATION PLAN The Chinese Communists, and. Soviet Union have signed a plan for scientific and technological cooperation for the last half of 1963 and the first half of 1964, Peiping radio disclosed on June 21. The Communist Chinese radio, mon1- tored in Tokyo, has also reported the signing of an executive plan for scientific coopera- tion between Communist China glad Bul- garia in 1963. Both were signed in Peiping. The Sino-goviet agreement was signed fol- lowing 8 days of talks "held in a friendly at- mosphere. A communique issued on June 19 said "under this plan the (Communist) Chinese and Soviet institutions concerned will mutually play host to scientific, engi- neering, and technical workers studying scientific and technical achievements and production experience in various branches of the national economy and will supply each other with scientific and technical data and samples." Mr. President, one of the greatest statesmen of our time is that " distin- guished Nebraskan, flon. Walter Judd, former Representative and former missionary to China. As a. student of Communist strategy he has no peer. I have heard him, liken the Communist strategy to that of a football game. When a football team acts like they are going to carry the ball through the line, look out-they are about to Tin the end, or make a surprise forward pass. When the football team gets poised for a line drive the opposing team must beware of a surprise punt. When the formation is called for a kick, the opposing team, if they want to win,, must be prepared for a line drive. Representative Judd has that,just as the football team uses,. .-istrategy to advance the ball, the Com- munists use strategy to advance com- munism and, achieve their unchanged goal of world domination. We should not forget that they want to bury us. . When they act like they want peace, they prepare for war. When ,they pretend to be friendly they strike with force. When the._vehicle of treaty ,making can be used to advance commu- nism they will use it, The Russian Com- munists neither enter into a treaty nor observe a treaty when it is not to their advantage to do so. When the United States and the Rus- sian Communists sit, down . at a peace table they do not meet as. equals. The Communists are aggressors. The Amer- icans are not. Americans are, believers. The Communists .are, atheists. ?The Americans honor treaties and the Com- munists break treaties. There are other, inequalities. The high-megaton nuclear explosions in the atmosphere carried out by the Russians following the, moratorium .may have given them additional knowledge which the United States ,does not have,, The Apostle Paul in writing to the Corinthians said: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath right- eousness with unrighteousness? And what communion li"ath light with darkness? Mr. President, I must be guideh by the lamp of experience and I cannot turn my back on history. Neither can I ignore the. warnings that have come from the Communists themselves. I bold in my hand a little devotional book written by Father, James Keller, founder of the Christophers. It is en- titled, "3 Minutes a Day." I want to read about the Communist boast made some 20 years ago. In reading it I want to point out that time is running against us: "War is inevitable," were the strong words used by Dimitri Manuilsky, when he ad- dressed the students of the Lenin School of Political Warfare in 1930. His dire forecast continued: "Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. "In order to win we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. "There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalistic countries-stupid and decadent-will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. " They will leap at another chance to be friends. "As soon as their, guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fists." Mr. President, I shall vote against this treaty. THE SOVIETS AND THE POSTWAR-A FORMER AMBASSADOR TO Moscow ANSWERS SDME PERPLEXING PROBLEMS (By Joseph E. Davies) (The replies to these questions, submitted by the editors do not reflect any current official opinion of either the Soviet Union or of the United States, so far as I know, Nor are the answers intended to be dogmatic. They are simply my own opinions, for such value as they may have. They are based upon published sources of information, and upon facts within my own knowledge, and represent my considered judgment.) "1.. Can we-assume that the rulers of Rus- sia are men of good will toward other nations and that they desire a peaceful, stable world?" Yes. Their public statements of policy and their deeds in the past decade both establish that. Ambassador Litvinow, when he was Foreign Minister, both within and without the League of Nations, was the out- standing advocate of collective action by the nonaggressor nations, in order to insure "a peaceful and stable world." War anywhere, he constantly urged,'woi ld engulf all the rest of us for "peace was indivisible." Abys- sinia, Spain, China, the attitude of the So- viets in agreeing to stand by Czechoslovakia .with France against attack by Germany-all attest to their sincerity as "men of good will." It. is, also, to, their practical best interests to have peace with, and in, the world. "2. Will Russia pursue a lone-wolf policy after the war or will she seek to cooperate with the other great powers in creating a stable world?" That will. depend upon what kind of world they will then face, or upon what kind of a world they think they are facing. If they believe in, and trust the proposals of Great Britain, China, and ourselves, and the United Nations, they will, in my opinion, go as far as any of these in a high-minded and al- truistic effort to cooperate in creating a stable and decent world. ,If, on the, other hand, they believe they are not getting a square deal on a reciprocal and high-minded basis, they will not hesi- 'tate to go it aldhe. They will not be "taken for a ride" Nor will they be used to pull anyone's chestnuts out of the fire. They will do exactly what we would do, if In their shoes. "3. Will Russia seek to create some kind of world federation, embodying some transfer of sovereignty from the member states to the central government? Or will she favor vol- untary cooperation by the great powers to maintain a stable world?" The Soviets vigorously supported the League of Nations and constantly advocated a stronger and more effective League. They are, however, essentially practical and real- istic in the application of their ideals. First things first is the motto of the Soviets. They, I feel sure, would be willing to give up so much of their sovereignty as would assure a strong federation to outlaw war, aggres- sion and conquest and to establish an in- ternational police force to keep the peace for the world community of nations. What other and further relinquishments of sov- ereignty they would agree to would depend upon how practical and unselfish the pro- posals were, and upon their confidence in the good faith of the other large nations. "4. Will Russia be willing to undertake any international commitments which in- volve revealing military information to other nations?" Yes, if it is upon a fair and reciprocal basis, and for the honest purpose of protecting the peace of the world community against gang- sters, outlaws, or terrorists. "5. Winston Churchill once described Rus- sian foreign policy as 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.' Can you make sense of it? What are its fundamental aims?" In my opinion, the best approach to the solution of the riddle is to forget the epigram and set to one side the idea of either an enigma, or a mystery. The riddle, if riddle there be, from my experience can be best solved by the simple approach of assuming that ,what they say, they mean; that they are honest in their beliefs, speak the truth and keep their promises. If one were to assume, also, that they were strong, able, courageous and willing to treat others hon- estly, if they believe they are treated hon- estly themselves, the riddle can be answered Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R0001002100082 16516 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 1,8 As, a matter of fact, in my opinion the for- world revolution. It was one of the alleged eign policy of the Soviet Government is quite betrayals of the revolution charged by the clear. Its first concern is to insure the ter- Trotskyites. ritorial security of the Soviet Union, They "8. If Russia has given up her ambition built up a great military and industrial sys- to turn the world Communist, may she tem for that purpose. The Soviet Govern- nevertheless still fear capitalistic encircle- ment:le not a predatory power like Germany ment and attack?" or Japan. It was only after Hitler came into That depends upon whether they think power that the great industrial development that they have reason for such fear. Much projected by Stalin was speeded up for war will therefore depend upon how the rest of the Soviet policy is to develop the U.S.S.R. internally. That can best be done in a peace- ful world. The Soviet foreign policy-there- fore has been consistently addressed to the prevention of war. When they lost faith in both the will and the capacity of the West- ern democracies to Join them realistically to stop Hitler, they still tried to maintain their security and their peace by entering into a nonaggression pact with Hitler in 1939. That -was not a pact for a mutual offensive against Germany's enemies. In that par- ticular, it provided only that neither would attack the other. They gained precious time Which-they feverishly employed to protect their security against the inevitable Nazi attack. After this war there will be still greater need-for peace to promote their plans for the internal development of their country. There is no riddle or mystery if the state- ments of the Soviet Government, or its lead- ers, are read in the light of these policies. They are straightforward and direct. "8. Is there religious freedom in Russia?" The Constitution of the Soviet Union (art. 124) -provides that, "Freedom of religious worst p and freedom of antireligious propa- ganda is recognized for citizens." By=this same article the church is sepa- rated from the state and the school "to in- sure citizens freedom of conscience." Axtdcle 135 of the Constitution provides that religion shall be no bar to the right of the citizen either to vote or hold office. Prior to the enactment of article 135, which is attributed directly by some to the attitude. of the President in his recognition of .able U.S.S.R, in 1933, several nations in- eluding the United States were guaranteed that, their citizens in the Soviet Union should have: (1) full liberty of conscience and religious worship, free from persecu- ,tios ; ($) the right to hold religious services in churches or buildings selected for that purpose, free from molestation; and (3) the right to impart religious instruction to their children. That, however, did not in- clude the right to proselyte outside those restrictions. In-1937 there were about 100,000 ministers of religion in the Soviet Union,- according to the chairman of the Atheist League of the U.S.S.R. The Russian Orthodox Church of the Soviet Union is militantly supporting the Government in this war. The highest pre- the world approaches the problem of Pee war reconstruction, and the attitude of the other nations toward the United Soviet Socialist Republic. If there are evidences of "hostility on the part of the outside world, they will certainly detect it and protect themselves. Before Russia entered the war, Russian dis- trust of the western powers was very real. On the morning following Hitler's night at- tack, June 22, 1941, there were highly in- formed persons in Moscow who believed that Britain would launch a simultaneous naval attack through the Baltic Sea in conjunction with, and pursuant to, an agreement with the Nazis. That fear was only relieved when Prime Minister Churchill's broadcast came over the air, pledging an-out aid to Russia. The developments in the conduct of the war, I believe, through contacts and better understanding, have definitely contributed to dissipating the classic fear of capitalistic encirclement and attack. "9. Even if Russia is not interested in pro- moting world revolution for its own sake, will she still use revolutionary activity as an instrument of Russian nationalism? May she for instance, promote Communist revo- lutfons.in Europe? In Asia?" This idea is again being vigorously and assiduously preached by Goebbels and other Nazi propagandists, both in and out of Ger- many. The express oral assurance of Pre- mier Stalin, the commitments contained in the Joint Declaration by the United Na- tions, and the treaty made with England have defindely killed that Hitler bugaboo which he has tried desperately, and without suc- cess, to sell to Europe these many years, The Soviet Union has an enviable record as a nation for keeping its -obligations. Except as an instrument of military necessity, the Soviet Union will not promote dissension in the internal affairs of other nations. "10. What do you think is the -probable extent of Russia's territorial demands.?" It would be natural for them to demand what any other people would, under similar circumstances. First, they would naturally want that back which had previously been taken away from them by force after the last war. After that, it would he natural for them to require any such territory as that which they considered to be vital to their security in the event of possible future European attack. The probable extent of Russia's territorial demands will therefore depend, in my opiin- ion, upon what conditions are when peace late, Acting Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow, comes and upon what kind of a world they has -appealed for this tolerance of religious thir.Lk is going to come out of the peace. people outside Russia and has urged that It should be remembered that the Baltic such people be not misled'by "Fascist propa- States were all carved out of, and taken Banda" or believe "their lies" as to persecu- away from Russia, after the last war. It is tion of the church in recent years. A book also the fact that the very Germany, which devoted to the Truth About Religion in they are now fighting, in 1917 and 1918 took Russia was recently published in Moscow by away from Russia nearly all of the territory the Orthodox heirarchy, addressed to provid- gained westward since the accession of Peter Ing accurate information on religion in the the Great, including the Ukraine and. White Soviet Union. Russia. It would be only natural that they There is no question, however, that despite should want to get it back from a defeated these constitutional guarantees there is much Germany. Five million Ukranians were ar- hostility toward religion In the party mem- bitrarily converted into Polish citizens after * by the Soviet Government either in. the treaty with Britain last June, or with the covenants contained in the Joint Declaration of the United Nations made in January 194:2, in Washington. Ii, could be contended that the acquisition of such territories did not constitute aggression, but simply the restor- ation to the Soviets of that which has been taken from theme by force and the rectifying of previous wrongs. Further, if the Soviet Government believes that it is confronted with the same type of world which existed before this war, they will undoubtedly require that which self- preservation demanded in this war, namely, a sufficient extension of territory on its west- ern frontier to make itself secure against possible European attack. That would mean a part of Finland and, possibly, a part of Poland up to the Curzon line. That, it will be remembered, was the line determined by the Curzon Commission under the Versailles Treaty as the line of racial demarcation of the Polish and Russian nationalities. Last year, when the Soviet-British Treaty was signed, providing for a mutual-assist- ance pact in the event of an attack upon either for a period of 20 years, both Britain and the Soviet Union were satisfied to leave the solution of controversial questions to be settled after the fighting was over by the application of certain broad equitable prin- ciples. That was wise. It is no time to fight among ourselves until Hitler and the Nazis are thoroughly beaten. At that time the question of the Polish border was raised, according to the press. It was reported that General Sikorski and the Polish Government were agreeable to that disposition of the problem in the in- terest of unity in the war effort. After the British-Soviet Treaty, which from press ac- counts seemed to have been approved by General Sikorski, great numbers of Polish prisoners held by Russia were freed, and some 100,000 Polish soldiers were released, armed by Great Britain and the United States, and organized as. a fighting force against Hitler. They are now :in the Middle East. I am very sympathetic with the Polish people, but it could scarcely be expected that the Soviets would remain mute when these controversial frontier matters were re- cently brought up in London; particularly in the face of what appeared to the Soviets to an implied consent to the postponement of the determination of the issue until after victory. The Soviets, obviously, could not permit these claims to be asserted without contradiction, without themselves being es- topped at some. 'uture time from asserting their viewpoint, upon which naturally they would wish to be heard. It is significant that it is not the Soviets who are now press- ing, so far as the United States is con- cerned, for decls:.ons upon these controver- sial matters. - After victory has been won, conditions may be entirely clifferent from those existing now. Many things may happen in the in- terim. The science of war is being com- pletely revolutionized by airpower. Fron- tiers such as rivers and mountains, provid- ing bases for fortifications, have lost much of their importance. The war has already shown that thousands of paratroopers may be transported to strike at vital centers in the interior, by simply passing over the frontier land fortifications. Boundaries may not be of such vital importance in a recon- structed and peaceful world. bership. I was reliably informed when in the last war. Bessarabia, which was taken Moreover, the terms of the peace may, and Moscow that the objections raised to the from Russia at about this time by Rumania, probably will, provide for mutual-defense adoption of these constitutional provisions had been Russian for 100 years. The United agreements for collective security, which will were overcome by Premier Stalin's personal States refused to recognize Bessarabia offi- reduce the necessity for military defenses advocacy of their passage. cially as a part of Rumanian territory, It and armaments. It is unthinkable that such " ,(. Is Russia determined to pursue the could be contended with much force that little, at least, would not be the result of cause of world revolution?" Soviet claims to all of this territory would the war. let my opinion, no. The Stalin 5-year po1- not be "territorial aggrandizement" and Under such conditions it is not beyond icy clearly set aside the Trotsky idea of would not be inconsistent with pledges made possibility that the Soviets might consider, Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 19.63. ApprovedFi# Release 2004/03/11: CIA-R?P6- B0.0383R000100210008=2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORIS -'SENATE in the inter st of eaceful world, that the matter of tie extenon of its frontiers was not a matter of vial protection against a _F i possible recurrence of German attack. Certainly, the comradeship and under- standing developed' by mutual fighting against Ilitler and aggression wIII? provide solvents for these knotty questions. "11. What does Russia regard as her proper spheres of influence'" That would, again depend upon the char- acter of the world which the Soviet Govern- ment would confront at the conclusion of the war, If the; postwar world can be assured of the enforcement of one principle, to wit: that military power cannot be used by any nation to enforce'~ts will (then theseques- tions of vital intereat can be determined on the basis of equity'-and decency. The So- viets, I believe, would go as far as any nation to.bxing that about. To answe the question flatly, however, there is no doubt th t there are certain mat-' ters in which Russ has a vital interest. There is the, matterwof access'to the,sQa and warns-water ports. That, particularly, af- fects the Pacific and the Mediterranean. Russia, has always been concerned with the ports of Port Arthur and Darien on the Pa- cific side, of which she was deprived in 1905. Again the use by her and other nations of the highway which the Dardanelles affords for, shipping and an outlet'from'theBlack Sea, and through the Mediterranean to the oceans, would naturally and rightly be`a matter o concern. Also, realistically,- in a hostile or n anarchic world, self-preserva- tion migt demand the thrusting forth of their defenses de against a possible repetition of German attack through the territory of snfaller states adjacent to Russia, which are not strong enough themselves to prevent a strong Germany, or other aggressor, from ranking a highway of these smaller coun- tries to attack the Soviet Union:. Tg Illus- trate: The, great sea base of Kronstadt, and the city of Leningrad, are only 25 `miles from the Finnish border and within easy 'reach of German long-range guns. The Soviet'Union made a very strong effort to come to an agreement with the Finnish Government, whereby the Soviets could compensate them for concessi ns of territories which were vital to Soviet defense against German attack. These the Finnish Government, in fear of Germany, was unable to concede because, ob- viously, they were' under the German gun, and, unfortunately, still are. Presumably, all of these vital interests and others, such as fair access to raw materials, the common use o the seas and the air as highways for all of he nations in the world comma}isty, and' similar matters, must ulti- matel ` e adjusted`on a basis of reciprocity and fair balancing of the interests of the various states, if there is to be a stable'peace. Their determination must be governed'under rules of decency and equity as between neigh- born wlih ,,desire peace for mutual advantage, even though they be friendly economic com- petitors. T believe' that the Soviet Union would cooperate wholeheartedly bind-would contribute ,positively to that end, once con- vinced of the good faith and reliability of her associates. The attitude of theta Soviets, no less than that of other nations, upon these vita"1 mat- ters will therefore depend entirely upon the kind of peace that is to be established to secure a;decent, desirable, and stable world "12. Will Russia e prepared to back lip her denlan s with ems if we oppose them?" If the,0oviets face an archaic world, where not peace but war, confronts them, they can d III- b ck up their 'security by force of as ,ia the only alternative,. That, I am sur$,tvould be far from their desire. "18. It" other states go Communist and voluil#a,rjly apply for admission to the will Russia admit them? Can we safely permit this?" If states adjacent to the Soviet'ul'nioii should voluntarilyapply for admission to the U.S.S.R., I have no doubt that they would be admitted. If that were done, both countries being willing, it would be my opin- ion that it was none of our business; nor would our safety .be necessarily imperiled thereby. If any such states were not con- tiguous to the borders of the Soviet Union, such application might possibly be embar- rassing to the Soviets, but I doubt it. In any event, in my opinion, they would resolve such problems in a practical and realistic way in cooperation with those nations that were associated with them in the common enterprise of keeping the peace of the world community. In this connection there has been much agitation directed from Berlin to the pos- sibility that the success of the Soviet armies might result in communizing Europe. It is the same' old red herring drawn across the trail. Anyone who knows. Europe knows full well, that neither the Scandinavian . coun- tries.(Norway, Sweden, Finland) nor Poland nor Rumania nor Hungary nor Greece nor Czechoslovakia would ever voluntarily accept communism or the Soviet system. And it will be a long time before the Soviets will ever call either Frenchmen or Germans Tova- risch after this war. "14. What will be Russia's. policy toward the defeated nations?" There is no doubt ,but that, , like the rest of us, they would wish to see evenhanded and exact justice done, under law and with- out passion. This would require that those in the defeated nations who were responsible for crime would' be duly tried by a judicial body and, if after due process, they were found to be guilty, then punishment suitable to the crime would be administered. Undoubtedly the Soviets would also re- quire that all necessary safeguards would be established to prevent defeated nations from again breaking the peace and indulging in mass murder. Apart from these, the policy of the Soviets would, I think, be dictated solely by humanitarian considerations. Pre- mier Stalin's published utterances abun- dantly support that conclusion. "15., What would be Russia's attitude to- ward a European` federation (not including herself and Great Britain) ?" It would clearly depend upon the char- acter of such federation. If it were to con- tain the seed of either actual or potential aggression, the Soviets would oppose it, just as we all would. Assuming that it was part of a general plan to secure world peace through collective action, and that it was so set up as to prevent domination by any potentially strong aggressor unit in it, I do not think that the Soviets would oppose it. "16. On what basis can a stable settlement in Asia be made between Russia and China?" would impair the common defense against Japan,' That is indicative of the kind of de- cent cooperation which, in my opinion, can be expectedfron} the Soviet Government in the interests of a peaceful world. "17. Does Russia fear an Anglo-American entente with an anti-Russian basis?" I do not know. It is, of course, possible, if we should so conduct ourselves as to justify that fear. It is of vital importance that this should not happen. We should accept the good faith of Britain and the Soviet Union, just as they should accept the professions which we make. "18. What if the Russian economic system proves to be more efficient than ours?" I do not accept the premise that their economic system will prove to be more effi- cient than ours. From what I have seen of both systems, I am firmly of the opinion that we need not fear their competition. Our system of free enterprise, under rules of fair competition protected by government, contains springs of initiative and enterprise that will, under fair conditions, surpass anything that a bureauc- racy, Under government administration, can produce. A pure governmental socialism, even with the great vigor and energy which the Soviet leadership provides, cannot com- petewith the efficiency of our type of private enterprise. A completely socialistic state, in my judgment, will inevitably, as human na- ture presently is and will continue to be for a long time, breed inefficiencies in contrast to an industrial, economic, and social system such as ours which, in addition to the joy in the working, provides greater individual reward for extra effort and exceptional abil- ity, coupled with police protection against unfair competition, monopolies, or other spe- cial class privilege. The fact that the Soviets have constantly extended the system of individual profit in order to make their industries more produc- tive during recent years, in my opinion, sup- ports that point of view. "19. What can America do to assure Russia of the security she needs and to assure mu- tual cooperation between our two nations?" The Soviet Government, so far as the fu- ture is concerned, recognizes that any ar- rangement with the United States, 'to be of .any real value, must. be by treaty and that that treaty must be confirmed by the Senate of the United ?'tates. They know very well what happened in the last war when the Senate refused to ratify the League of Na tions Treaty. That fact contains the answer to the question. The surest answer is to be found in a bet- ter mutual understanding and confidence as between our peoples. "20. How would you deal with Russia?" Exactly as I would want to be dealt with if conditions were reversed. Their word I would accept with the same confidence that I would ask them to accept ours, until faith had been broken. Just as I would insist that their government would not interfere in our internal affairs or in our governmental mat- ters, so I would scrupulously stay out of theirs. Their government is their business. What they tell their people, or do not' tell their people, is not our concern. They have their own problems. They have handled them in a manner which demonstrates their effectiveness and also their purpose to serve peace, order, and law in the world. Generally speaking, we should deal with the Soviet Union as she is entitled to be dealt with. The U.S.S.R. is a great nation. It covers one-sixth of the world's land surface and has approximately one-tenth of the total population of the world. The country is blessed with enormous natural wealth-min- Both Russia and China, in my opinion, have leaderships which are sincere in their desire to secure a peaceful world. Both of these leaderships- are practical and wise. Both recognize that there can be no peace if force is to be used by either as an instrument of national policy to enforce the will of either over the other. Both, I believe, to secure a peaceful world, will actively try to establish an effective international police. That ac- complished, there is within these two coun- tries sufficient capacity for fairness and tol- erance to settle all matters of difference if any such exist, through reciprocal arrange- ments'on a fair and equitable basis as be- tween themselves; and if not, each, I am sure, governed by a decent respect for the opinion of mankind, would submit their dif- ferences to other members of the community of nations in order to preserve the peace-of that community. As far back as 10-38, I was reliably informed in Moscow that the Soviet Union was most helpful to the government of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, in that it exercised its in- iluerice on'behalf-of`the' hinese Government eral, agricultural, fisheries; forestry-and a great, vigorous, strong people. The poten- tialities of the Soviet Union are commensu- rate with the eachievements which she has Approved' ~'or Release>2004LQ j L#i -ICI B00383R~000TO02100 8- 2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -? SENATE September 18 demonstrated. She is destined to be one of the very great powers of the earth. In. the interest or our country and the world at large, she must be accorded the recgInition and treatment that such a situ- ation requires. Without Russia, our com- mon victory would have been seriously jeop- ardized. Without the cooperation of the Soviet Union, there can be no permanent and durable peace projected. Both of these are Self-evident. If we cooperate with the Soviet Union on a basis of fairness to her, to ourselves, and to the rest of the world, the Soviet -Union can be an inestimable power and 'a great influence in the establishment of permanent peace' and the elimination of war, for the common benefit of all of us. To think of the Soviet Union in any other way and to deal with her in any other manner or on any other plane is to expose the world and ourselves to many avoidable dangers and natastrophes. This was in effect the policy I recom- mended to my Government at the end of 2ny service as Ambassador to the Soviet " 'union. To the Department of State I find atj wrote the following: "Such a ,policy does not involve approving in any manner the ideological' concepts of this, Goyert}ment. It does, however, recog- .nlzC.the right of self-determination. It is interpretative of the high-minded and Christianlike declarations of the foreign .policy of the United States as expressed by the President of the United States and the Secretary of State in connection with foreign affairs. It is a good neighbor policy, and lone -consistent with the best traditions of our diplomatic history." "2L Should we start negotiations with Russia (and the other great powers) now to "lay the basis for postwar cooperation?" Yes, provided such negotiations were con- fined..to matters upon which there is sub- stantial agreement, the discussion of which would not impair the unity necessary to win the war, If,` for instance, the" great powers could atow negotiate a treaty ?providing for collec- tive security, the outlawry of war as an in- strument of aggression or conquest, and pro- viding the means for enforcing order so that the peace of the world community would not be brdken, it would be highly desirable. "Upon, such simple negotiations there could be "little room for disagreement. It is ob- viousl,y'in the interest of all and detrimental to none With that done, a long step forward would be taken in the winning of the peace. Under such a 'condition all other matters in differ- ence would have to be settled by conference and mutual concessions, fairly and equitably, for force would be outlawed. Time would be afforded for the settlement of the inevitable graver problems of frontiers, access to raw materials and other economic and political problems. Such a simple agreement would in itself constitute a great contribution to civiliza- tion, It might make haste more slowly, but in illy opinion it would be more surely. Tropical growth flowers rapidly, but it wilts easilyr and is not hardy. Hardwood forests are slow - in growth, but they withstand storms and last long. Mi. 'f'HURMOND. Mr. President, will , the Senator yield? Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. I congratulate the able and distinguished Senator from Nebraska fora masterful presentation today. Since I came to the Senate I have not heard a finer address than the one delivered by the able Senator from Nebraska today. It is a masterpiece. The Senator is a student of commu- nism. He knows the dangers and evils of communism. He knows that when Mr. Khrushchev says, "I favor peace" what he really means is the time after he has conquered the world when there will no longer be any conflict and therefore peace under Communist rule. He knows that the word "truth" to the Communist means anything to promote the Commu- nist cause. He is astute enough to un- derstand that we cannot trust the Com- munists except to do what they want to do and what promotes their interests. I commend the able Senator. He has made a fine contribution to the debate. I wish every Senator could have been present to hear him speak today. Again I congratulate the able Senator from Nebraska. 1Vir. CURTIS. The distinguished Sen- ator has been more than generous. I do not deserve his praise. I judge no other Senator, but ]: shall have no part of the treaty. I respect the motives of every Senator, but I cannot turn my back on history or the pro- nounced intentions of the Russian Communists. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CURTIS. I am glad to yield to my distinguished friend the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. SIMPSON. I commend the Sena- tor from Nebraska, and I associate my- self with the remarks made by the dis- tinguished Senator from South Carolina. I have a great and abiding affection forthe Senator from Nebraska, and a high regard for his ability. His address today, to which I have listened very at- tentively, confirms more and more my belief that I am entirely correct in my opposition to the so-called test ban treaty. I also commend the Senator for his statement about the first step. We have heard much about the "first step"' pro- cedure. I am reminded of what the d:is- tingufshed Senator from Utah said in the committee to which I belong. It was said that when a person starts upon a long journey he must always take a first step. The distinguished Senator from Utah said, "Yes, and if you take that first step in the wrong direction you are likely to meet with ruin." The Senator's remarks today have great probative force. I also wish that all Senators could have been present to hear the Senator's remarks, because I am convinced that perhaps many would be able to seethe error of their ways and perhaps would vote with us against the treaty, which I think would do a disservice to Amer- left. Mr. CURTIS. I express my gratitude for the kind words of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, with a feeling of humility. I do not deserve'his tribute. I am alarmed by all the discussion of additional "steps." Is it expected we shall proceed to completely disarm our country? Will Uncle Sam be asked to agree to reform and not commit aggres- siori, and to close the door on the millions of people who are now behind the Iron Curtain? I do not know what the next step will be. I agree that the first step is the be- ginning of a long journey, but I contend that it is easier to take a step downhill than a step uphill. Mr. SIMPSON. The Senator from Wyoming has observed that there have been some rather intemperate remarks made to the effect that any one who" was opposed to the treaty was irrational or that any 10-year-old should have the sense to sign it. I merely observe that the able chairman of a great committee, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Rus- sELLI, certainly is not irrational. Cer- tainly, Senators TiruRMOND, STENNIS, ROBERTSON, RUSSELL, and other Senators of that caliber are not irrational. I pro- test that kind. of statement. I yield to no one in this body in my belief in this country and the patriotism I feel for it. The Senator :from Nebraska has made a distinct contribution, and it confirms me in my belief that my standis correct. Mr. CURTIS. I thank the Senator. I take this poeition because I want to prevent a nuclear war. Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me before he yields the floor? Mr. CURTIS. I yield-to the Senator from Alabama. Mr. SPARKMAN. I join Senators who have complimented the Senator from Nebraska. I think he knows I do not agree with him in the conclusions he has drawn,-out I think he has made a fine and clear presentation of his view- point. I wish to question him briefly about one or two points. I have care- fully followed the debate and the hear- ings before the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, both the open sessions and the secret sessions. As I have previously stated on the floor, that I do not believe any member of the committee attended the hearings more regularly than I did, with the exception of the chairman of the committee, who I believe attended more regularly than any other member. But the Senator from Nebraska has placed a great deal of emphasis upon the interim report made by the Prepared- ness Investigating Subcommittee. I read it wits. a great deal of interest. I appreciate the amount of work that went Into it. I am impressed by one thing about the report, which was brought out by the committee in the con- cluding paragraph. I am sure the Sena- tor from Nebraska is familiar with the portion which reads: Although we have concluded that there will be a net mLitary disadvantage to us if the treaty is rattled, we recognize the exist- ence of other factors which, while not within the scope of thie report, are pertinent to a final judgment o:a the treaty. Among these are matters related to international affairs, foreign policy, and relations with other coun- tries. When these are taken into considera- tion the question becomes one of weighing relative risks, and our hearings provide ample evidence that the overall assessment of the relative raerits and demerits of the treaty is a complex and difficult matter on which equally patriotic, informed, and dedi- cated persons nary and do disagree. In the final analysis, then, each individual must reach his own judgment on the basis of per- sonal philosophy, past experience, current knowledge, and t:ae relative weight which he assigns to the various factors involved. Let me go one step further and note that there are seven members of the sub- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 Approved Fo'r Re'lease 2004/03111 CIA-RDP6 1&C30383RGe01OO21#I 6 2` CONGRESSIONAL RGOR]~ STATE 16519 committee. Of the seven members, six Mr. SPARKMAN. So far as I know, That is a positive statement, to say the have definitely taken a stand, three of no Senator has questioned it. All I am least. them in favor of the treaty, and three. trying to say is that the subcommittee, in Mr. CURTIS. It is. I thank the dis- opposed. So far as I know, the seventh its conclusion, said that there are other tinguished Senator. I hope that before member has not given an expression on- factors which- are recognized but have the debate concludes some Senator will It. But ft seems to me the cgzn nittee npt Considered .Each_Senator will have defend the treaty., itself was saying there is not aclear-cut to consider them. All the committee has Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will decision against In other words, the done is present the military picture. the Senator yield? committ dxd npt.lllake a report against I do not wish to_engage in argument, Mr. CURTIS. I yield. the treaty. Is said, in effect, "These are but I thought it was rather significant Mr. THURMOND. The point was the military facts, and we have not gone to point out that fact. raised by the distinguished Senator from into the other factors. Each individual ? Mr.. CURTIS. Those- conclusions have Alabama about the Joint Chiefs of Staff Member ~ynust decide for himself,", Fol- npt,been challenged in any speech on the supporting the treaty. I wish to read lowing that, at least three members spoke floor. the last part of their statement, given by for the treaty, and three have spoken Mr. SPARKMAN. Also, I point out General Taylor. This is what he said: against the treaty. So far as I know, that half of the members of the subcom- The risks inherent in this treaty can be the seventh member has not yet given mittee have, expressed themselves on the accepted in order to seek the important an expression. To me, that fact is quite treaty and have -spoken for it. They gains which may be achieved through a significant. CRTIS, I, too, read that have not merely announced they were stabilization of international relations and Mr. report for it; they-have made speeches on the a rove toward a peaceful environment in which to seek resolution of our differences. and the closing paragraph. All it means floor of the Senate in favor of the treaty , to me is that the pommtttee is. not in- Mr. CURTIS.., I think that is an of any other pom- emphatic condemnation. of the treaty. m e w e the It is not province e empting to embrace Mr. SPARKI N. If the Senator will In its report matters to be Covered- by yield to me for one-further point, I was the bon m1ttee on Foreign Relations, interested in the Senator's reading from and perhaps other committees. Father Keller's book,. Father Keller is the very fact that the dedicated , chair- a great leader and a forceful speaker, man of that subcommittee, and half of but I happened to think, while the Its member who are dedicated, to the Senator was reading, about the motto of defense of its country, cannot support the Christophers. Is it printed on the the treaty, should weigh against It,. __ The inside page of the book? If not, I think mere fact that ,half of its members, in- I can quote It. ffi eluding the chairman, have spoken out Mr. CURTIS. Perhaps the Senator against the treaty should weigh against can. There is a research center from the treaty. -Everyone knows that upon which a Senator can obtain all sorts of the chairman falls ,the responsibility of information- calling for hearings and assembling re- Mr. SPARKMAN. No; I have read ports. The - report speaks for itself. many of Father Keller's little booklets: The rll,ilitary conclusions in it have not Mr. CURTIS. What I read was not been disputed by members of that com- Father Keller's, book. mittee or, any other committee tn. the Mr. SPARKMAN. It was a quotation Senate. Is that not, correct? used in the book. 1 -1 Mr. SI'.EiRKMAN. No; I do not agree Mr. CURTIS. I was referring to what to that statement. I am not sure the was said by Dimitri Manuilsky; and "the Senator means just .what I. understood boast about their political warfare in him to me n, ., 1930, wherein he said: Mr. C L'IS. The Joint Chiefs of The bourgeoisie will have to be put to Staff say there are military disadvan- sleep, so we shall: begin by launching the tages to the treaty. 1%, most spectacular peace movement on record. Mr. SPAIKMAN, yes; but each There will be electrifying overtures and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rec- unheard-of concessions. The capitalistic pm mended ratification of the treaty. countries-stupid and decadent-will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They 'M17, CUJRTIS. I.1;now that. . will leap at another chance to be friends. Mr. SPARKMAN. Each one of them As soon as their guard is down, we shall did so because they all took into con- smash them with our clenched fists . sideration the other factors which they Mr. SPARKMAN. I am familiar with Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I said ought to be taken into considera- that quotation, ask unanimous consent to have printed tion. Mr. CURTIS. It was a Russian who in the RECORD at this point the portion Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator will read said that, of General LeMay's testimony to which their entire testimony,- they admit that Mr. SPARKMAN. I knew that. I the Senator from Nebraska has referred. the treat - said the quotation was contained in There being no objection, the excerpt . Mr. SPARKMAN. I was present and Father Keller's book. was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, -heard it. I did not, have to read it. I Mr. CURTIS. Does that invalidate it? as follows: sat in committee and heard it. I heard Mr. SPARKMAN. I thought it might General LeMay stated: It in open session, and later I heard it in be interesting. "But the net result is that there are secret sessioh military and technical disadvantages to the seret CURTIS. Let the record speak Mr. CURTIS. Father Keller's book is treaty. An of the Joint Chiefs agreed on for itself, a devotional book. I did not intend to this point. eiiter Into a denominational discussion. "However, there are Mr. SPARK MAN. Yes. The Supreme Court might enjoin us the treittre advantages Mr. GUIi,TIS. I Challenge the Senator . I that may accrue fromthe aty. This is to show me ,a speech made in this de- could have obtained the Dimitri Manu- a field that I don't consider myself an ex- bate in which, point by point, a Senator ilsky quotation from another book, but pert in, and I have depended to a large has undertaken Which, to disprove the Senator happened to have this one on my desk. extent on the advice of others." has athe dt gs Mr. SPARKMAN. I thought the General LeMay stated that he and the ennis subcommittee concerning motto of the Christophers, for whom other Chiefs had been briefed on the polio- the treaty. Father Keller writes, should be placed in cal, or nonmilitary considerations, by both . S KMAN. I am not tryin to Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Under- t 0 that. g the RECORD: Secretary Harriman, It is" better to light a candle than to curse General LeMay was interrogated further Mr. CURTIS. It has not hnnn Anna +i.- Approved For Release 2004/03/11':-CIA-RDP65W383R0;0,1110f; 21 3008-2; a x Those are the political questions on which the Chiefs based their decision. According to their own words, they are willing to take the military risks in order to achieve two political gains, namely, the gain of stabilization of international re- lations and the move toward a peaceful environment. I ask the distinguished Senator whether he feels that the treaty will bring about a stabilization of interna- tional relations. Mr. CURTIS. Definitely not. The Chiefs of Staff warned against eupho- ria-against complacency. I wish the Senator would read into the RECORD at this point his words of yesterday when he quoted General LeMay as to what his instructions were as to considering factors other than the military merits. Mr. THURMOND. The other point that was mentioned in the statement of General Taylor on behalf of the joint Chiefs of Staff was: A move toward a peaceful environment in which to seek a resolution of our differences. Does the Senator feel the treaty would bring about a peaceful environment, or may it not be a step toward disarma- ment, which in the end could lead us into war, instead of peace? Mr. CURTIS. If I thought the treaty was a move for peace, I would support it. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,- SENATE September 18 of West Virginia, who posed the following risk our national survival and our inde- cea, marking a solution to the cold war. question: pendence if we agree to abide by a treaty The vast ideological gulf separating East "You have indicated, General LeMay,, that of this natures from West has not closed; the cold war the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not to confine Mr. CURTIS. That is true. In the has not ended for all times; the world, purely the military course of the hearings I asked the Secre- to quote the words of one of our heralded their before us~on thisbasis connection considerations, but that political considera- tary of State if the treaty had strength- predecessors, is not yet "safe for democ- tions were also to be thought about. erred the hand of Khnishchev with his racy." But, we face the future with re- "Is this normal, General LeMay, or has it own people. I did not get a direct reply. newed hope, knowing that peaceful been the practice in the past for the Joint He said, "The treaty is popular all over." methods are pcssible to lessen tensions. Chiefs of Staff to attempt to as?ess political The fact is that it has strengthened and to ameliorate conflicts without a conslderatibnsin reaching their judgments?" the influence of Khrushchev in this coun- concomitant loss of status and/or -General LeMay responded: it certainly has been true since Presi- try, back home in my State of Nebraska, strength vis-a-vis the Communist bloc dent Kennedy came into office, because this and everywhere else. He has partly ac- nations. is one of the first things that they told the coirnplished his mission of disarming the Many observers have noted since the Joint Chiefs they expected them to do. They Amarican people. There is not one iota signing of the tast ban accord that it, in expected them to put the political factors of evidence that the Communists have fact, accomplishes little which the volu.n- in at their level. changed their goal or that Gromyko is tary moratorium did not--that is, we "They told us this verbally many times. any more truthful now than when he was have signed an agreement banning Actually, I think we have a note in writing the White House deceiving our Presi- on the subject, the Joint Chiefs." space, atmospheric, and underwater Quite obviously, therefore, the testimony dent a year ago. testing. of the Joint Chiefs does not conflict with Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The treaty The most controversial aspect of the the findings of the Preparedness Subcom- has been described as one of a number armaments race remains unchecked; no mittee. The Joint Chiefs were instructed. of steps. It may well prove to be about regulation of underground nuclear test- to consider the political considerations, the only step that will be necessary to ifs- ing has been attempted. which they were given by Mr. Flusk and Mr. sure Soviet superiority. Is that correct? Harriman, and this is the basis for their Nil.. CURTIS. It might be the one Despite the fact that complete and support of the ratification of the treaty. step that we can refrain from taking. unanimous agreement has not been Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- The other steps will be harder to resist. reached on all facets of banning nuclear dent, will the Senator yield?' Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I thank the testing, that we have reached an accord Mr. CURTIS, I yield. Senator. on any portion of this whole, compli- Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I agree with ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. cated problem--a problem which poten- the Senator that there is no reason to TOMORROW tially could spell doom for the human believe that this Nation would be advan- Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I race--indicates progress. That we have taged by trusting the Soviet Union and ask unanimous consent that when the not yet gone the whole way and com- the leaders of that country to keep their pletely erased the threat of nuclear war word. A great number of individuals Senate adjourns today, it adjourn to meet and weapons is not the primary issue. and nations making that mistake found at 10 a.m. tomorrow. We are moving toward our goal of last- that their decision led to their own ex- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without ing peace and, simultaneously, protect- tinction. objection, it is so ordered. ing our own self-interest. Is it not true that the best-information ORDER OF BUSINESS The present treaty, despite its ob- the Senator can find indicates that the Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for vious limitation, is significant on several treaty would be an advantage to the the information of the Senate, it is hoped counts. A step has been made toward Soviet Union from a military point of that all senators who desire to speak on the gradual tapering off of the pace of view, as compared with the Lfiiited States, the pending partial test ban treaty will the arms race. This is important. even assuming that the Soviet Union come to the Chamber tomorrow and Fri- History shows that all arms races have does abide by the treaty? - day, prepared to remain until late. If ended in war. If and when an agree- Mr. CURTIS. That is the unques- there are no requests for speeches to be ment is made to ban nuclear testing un- tioned testimony of every 'military au- made on Saturday, it is anticipated by derground, the nuclear arms race should thority who appeared in, any of the hear- the leadership that there will be no come to a halt. ngs. It is supported by the Senatorfrom Saturday session. There has been much speculation Mississippi (Mr. S. TENNIS] In his report. Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. President, about the Soviet Union's motives in ne- It Is supported by the Senator from the Senate has before it today a treaty ababoutith a nuclear ts bon treaty a Mississippi in his speech. It Is supported which may prove to be a small step to- this time, after 5 years of mocking alt by the distinguished soldier, the Senator ward a world free from the scourge of - attempts to devise a osmula acceptable from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND]. war. If this treaty is not approved, it to both East; and West. Many people It is supported by the Senator . from may be many years before the people of the world will have another opportunity feel that we are witnessing a change in Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL]. to begin this journey. In fact, though Soviet policy--peaceful coexistence with I said earlier in my speech that 40 Sec- it is hard to face this reality, we may an accompanying lessening of tensions retaries of Defense or of the separate now be considering the last opportunity is a sincere goal of the Khrushchev branches of the service have come and government. Others see the Soviet will- for civilization to start this journey. gone 'since Senator RUSSELL served on Because the results of the Senate's ingness to conclude a treaty as an effort o all to throw the West off balance. These the Armed Services Committee or the decision may be so consequential to' predecessor committee. mankind both living and yet to be born, critics argue that we will suffer from a It is not a matter of my opinion. It is it is essential that the most careful false sense of security and as a result .generally accepted and not disputed that thought be given to the promises and curtail our own nuclear exploration to the military advantages are in favor of possible pitfalls of the treaty. the benefit Of the Communists. They the Soviet Union. This I have done. Last Friday, I predict that Western military power will Mr. ,LONG of Louisiana. The Senator spoke before the Third Baptist Church diminish in relation to that of the Com- has spelled out the fact that as a part of Men's Study Group in St. Louis, Mo., on munists. the Communist doctrine, from the Soviet the subject of the treaty and presented The Joint Chiefs of Staff and other point of view, it is a laudable thing for m;r reasons for supporting ratification. military and scientific experts have ex- them to deceive, defraud, and mislead I ask unanimous consent that my state- pressed assurances that militarily the other nations, particularly the capitalist ment be printed in the RECORD at the treaty is sound. It does not, in their nations of the world. Recognizing that conclusion of my remarks. considered opinions, put this country in fact, and, in addition, the fact that they There being no objection, the state- a disadvantageous position. Further, the are obtaining a military advantage from ment was ordered to be printed in the President has assured us that under- the treaty itself, and thus will have the RECORD. ground testing will be vigorously and dili- ability to consummate their perfidious (See exhibit 1.) gently carried forward and that we will acts, I ask the Senator if that does not Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi- maintain a position of readiness to re- add up to the conclusion that we might dent, this treaty is not a coveted pana- sume testing in the other environments Approved For-Release 2004/03/11: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 z v~ , (UlN CGESSIONA L .R >-SA' ., if- there is a violation of the. j r ty by against the treaty itself. I have arrived at the Soviet Union. a conclusion on the miltTc, but it isnQt.my Already more than 90 nations in the purpose to make any attempt at persuasion international community have signed the here tonight. I have reached a judgment treaty. An irresponsible rejection of the to support ratification, and I want you to treaty would damage the ZJ,S,,, p~lSittOe know how I have arrived at that conclusion. First, let me make it clear that while my as a World leader dedicated to peace. support for ratification of the treaty is un- Finally, and this in and of itself is qualified, it does. not. stem from any notion sufficient Season for consenting to the that entering into the compact doesn't in- treaty, with the cessation of atmospheric volve risk. There are risks-and it is im- and space tests, radioactive fallout will portant that we recognize this reality. But become ,less of aproblem. ,This is an what great achievement does not involve chance and uncertainty? especially important factor to. the citi -. Wasn't there great risk in the pioneering zeris of Missgur ,for we have . Qne. f the of our beloved country, risks that had to be highest Strontium 90 counts in the_coun- taken in order t9. forge this great Nation try. Our health and that of our children from a vast and uncharted wilderness? Yet, must be taken_lrito account when con- men did not turn their backs on the venture idering this treaty. Most authorities because of them, and as a result America ea,relationship exists between cer- believ Haven't all great discoveries of man, in tain types of Cancer and the Strilntium exploration, in science, in medicine required 90 count in the atmosphere. If ethis is assumption of risks-grave risks? But this true, we cannot- justify-to ourselves or fact alone has not swayed man from the future generations-our not adhering to course that has led to knowledge and un- this agreement.. Moreover, the risk of derstanding of our environment, alleviation radiation-induced mutations and genetic of suffering, cure of disease-and a greatly deformities must be taken into account, advanced civilization. Isn't our space program-exploring the As I said earlier, this treaty does not unknown mysteries of the universe-de- signal the termination of the cold war. mantling from our modern day pioneers Commuxiist ideology and Western beliefs awesome risks and, dangers? But because still are polar. An, ideological difference, men and women are willing to carry on this however,. does not mean that one side work, knowing there are risks and coping must destroy the other, We have man- with them intelligently, world security in- aaged to find, one area of mutual agree- creases, and man is likely on the may lead of fantastic discoveries that may lead to meat. Perhaps others exist, If so, we solutions of many age old problems. may find them. Isn't there .a definite -element of risk in All of our problems are not over, we every business venture-every investment- cannot expect utopian conditions. How- every new business opening-every factory ever, we cin'be,justly proud and happy expansion? But because men recognize them, assume them and deal with them in that a constructive attempt is being sound calculation our business and Indus- made to deal with one of mankind's most trial economy thrives. perplexing difficulties. Doesn't every family venture, whether it It is for these reasons that I support is a home purchase, or selection of a college the test ban treaty. In so doing, I am for a son or daughter involve risks? If cognizant that .dangers and difficulties risk alone caused us o abandon family aspirations, democracy y and self-determina- are inherent in the situation: tion would have failed miserably long ago. The treaty is a true test of our..Na- If we find that every phase of life has its tion's courage. It would be far easier to dangers and its risks, and certainly they adhere to the status quo and continue have, would it be reasonable to shun what our daily lives with the false security could well be the first opportunity of man offered by unlimited nuclear develop- ent peace, eo ace his greatest earthly goal, r of meat. But, this was not the way of our because It involves a d a egreee e of uncertainty? forefathers and , it, is not the way of Since the dawn of human creation, man Amerleal s today. We have the courage, has reached for this goal. Today we have the will, and tthe means to seek a lasting a chance to take the first small step in that and' responsible , peace. If this venture direction. Although it is only a first step- toward the realization of . mankind's and only a small one, to be sure-if we let fondest., dream fail, it must not be be- it pass us by, who can tell how many genera- tions of the future may come and go before cause we refused to give it a chance, there is another such opportunit to mak y e Let us take this, first small step with a breakthrough. In fact, considering to- full realization of all it entails but let us day's capacity for destruction, man may take it enthusastically. never again have such an opportunity. I Ekxparr believe our duty to God and to our Chris- TxE TEST BAN TUFATo Paocaa;ss og.llAOR,x,s? flan philosophy demands that we look at this opportunity realistically, and make every (A ddre b n a ss y the Honorable EDWARD V. effort to see it bear the fruit of peace and LoNCs, V.S, Senator from.Missouri, before security. the Third Baptist., Church Men's Study Sometimes I get the feeling that perhaps Group, St. Louis, o., Sept. 13, 1963) there has been so much talk about the many Gentlemen, you have invited me to dis- risks involved in the treaty, that we can cuss with you the question of the proposed tend to lose sight of the very real fact that nuclear test ban treaty-the 1,500-word document, signed August 5 by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union w of , is now, being debated in the ? ,, S', i)te,, , appreciate the opportunity to explore the many faceted agreement with you-men who I know full well share my hope for a world at peace, not at war-a world in, which man, as a creature in the image and likeness, of God, lives in keeping with all at is inherent in his nature, with the freedom and dignity the Creator in- 1652,x, (c) An increasing risk of radioactive con- tamination of the atmosphere. I am con- vinced that the treaty constitutes a small beginning in reducing the first two of these risks, and will dramatically reduce the third. With the treaty, those risks are overcome, but new ones take their place. They are: (a) Secret testing by the Soviets; and (b) Secret preparations to resume testing by the Soviets, and their sudden, large-scale treaty violations. I am convinced that the treaty, and U.S. policies developed under it, will reduce these risks so that either course of action by the Soviet Union will not be a threat to our security. In balance, the reasonable possibilities that our acceptance of the treaty may usher in a new era in which man is serving man in- stead of trying to dominate and destroy him are so great, that if we don't act with ad- vised courage, our hesitance and failure could be the greatest step away from peace that man has ever taken. An old Army axiom has it that a good soldier never polishes the backs of his shoes because no one will ever see him in retreat. I pray God that it can never be said that this country was seen in retreat from the frontiers of peace. What is this treaty? What does it do? What does it not do? The treaty, a simple and clearly written document, prohibits nuclear testing in the atmosphere, in space, and underwater. Underground testing is permitted so long as there is no radioactive fallout beyond the boundaries of the testing country. Those are the only things the treaty does. It does not prohibit the production of nu- clear weapons-nor the means of delivering such weapons. It does not restrict the use of nuclear weap- ons in the event of war. It does not require that the United States give diplomatic or other official recognition to any country not presently recognized. It does not bind the United States to any further agreements or negotiations regarding further disarmament. And the treaty does not commit the United States to any negotiations or settlement of political issues, despite the attempts of the Soviet Union to tie the treaty to a nonaggres- sion pact with the Warsaw treaty nations. Going further into the advantages and dis- advantages as I have listed them, let us con- sider them one by one. With reduction of the arms race, we will be taking the first step toward eventual arms control-a goal we have been seeking ever since we first realized what a massive destructive power we had in our hands when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki-small and crude weapons in the light of today's standards. The allout, uncontrolled, increase, and multiplication of destructive might has not increased our national security. Since the -dawn of the nuclear age in the closing days of World War II, our adversaries have been constantly close at our heels-each of us forcing the other toward-even beyond-the point where one's capability would so far out- strip the other's that he would draw back in horror. But instead we have both long since reached the stage of development where fur- our present situation-where there is no _ther increases in power of our weapons make limitation on testing, itself involves a num- little, if any real contribution to our capa- ber of very serious risks. It would be logical bility. By President Kennedy's own estimate, to weigh these risks, and see how they strike both of us are fully capable of destroying a balance, if in fact they do. upward of 300 million human beings in only Without a test ban the risks are: 1 hour. Having reached the "point of dimin- (a) A continued intensified and unre- ishing returns" in destructive power, the stricted arms race between the United States United States has, in recent years, concen- and the U.S.S.R. History has made it clear trated primarily on deliverability of weap- that all arms races have led to war. ons, proceeding on the assumption-and I (b) A continued and increasing risk of think a valid one-that accuracy and de- further spread of nuclear weapons among the pendability at this point far outweigh sheer Approved For Release-2004/03/11 :CIA-RDP'65R00383R000100210008.2 16522 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE eptember 18 to have printed in the RECORD at this point a statement prepared by him re- lating to the proposed nuclear test ban treaty. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR MCGEE The debate on ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty ha3 caught the interest of the Nation, and we are indeed in the spotlight of public attention and concern. I have re- ceived many, many letters from Wyoming concerning various points in the treaty and its effects upon this Nation if ratified. There- fore, I thought it would be appropriate if I approached this question in response to those inquiries. The first thing that must be understood is that a Wyomiing approach to the problem of the cessation of nuclear testing Is no different from the approach of a resident of any other of the 50 States. For Wyoming, although it is far from either ocean and unique in many aspects of her way of life, is on the front lines in any potential nuclear war. In our missile bases at Cheyenne, the largest missile complex In the world, and our oil industry centered about Casper, we have completely suitable targets for nuclear deva- station. And we neighbor a State in which the levels of radioactive materials have reached such quantities as to be of real con- cern to public health officials, and, it goes without saying, 1;o the mothers of growing children. Our stakes in this matter are as vital as those of any other American. While Wyoming's interests in this treaty are identical to the rest of the Nation's, I think that it is proper and illuminating to draw some parallels in the development of Wyoming and the West and the tenor of the reservations expressed against the test ban treaty. To agree to this treaty, according to its critics, would be to take unjustified risks with the future of the Nation because we cannot be positively certain that the Soviet Union will not at some future date break the agreement. It is also said that this treaty, once ratified, wi:.l immediately lull us into a soporific attitude of national negligence from which we shall awake to find ourselves in chains. Thera critics say that as a pre- clude to any treaty we should insist that the Russians agree to dismantle the Iron Curtain, and present us with ironclad evi- dence of their sincerity in this matter and their withdrawal from the cold war. If the pioneers, who settled Wyoming had Insisted upon equivalent guarantees before they started on their -westward journey none would have ever passed the Mississippi. The thing that separated these pioneers from the rest of the population is the very fact that they were willing to take calculated risks In order to create a better life for themselves. These resolute Americans had no illusions about finding a:iy Garden of Eden in the American West. They required no iron- bound assurances that the Indian popula- tion would immediately abandon all hostile attitudes and they did not ask as a prere- quisite to that journey that all questions of land ownership and rights be settled in their favor. While our forefathers were perfectly will- ing to accept this risk, I do not Imply that they were unmindful of the dangers In- volved or Ignored the risks of their journey and new way Of life. Quite to the contrary, they took every reasonable precaution to as- sure success in their journey and in the establishment of a new life in the new land. These precautions took the form of well-de- fended wagon t?ains, scouts, and lookouts, and the maintenance of adequate supplies and lines of communication. More than 90 nations have now become sig- natories to the treaty-binding themselves to the compact that blocks the flow of nu- clear weapons and information to them. By limiting further spread of nuclear capa- bility to presently nonnuclear countries, the risk that a nuclear .weapon would be acci- dentally detonated is significantly reduced, in turn lessening the danger of a local con- flict escalating from conventional to nuclear. An escalated conflict would almost certainly place the United States and the Soviet Union in direct confrontation. It is hopefully expected that within a short time all the nations of the world, save Communist China and France, will have bound themselves to the agreement. World opinion moves toward greater crystalization against atmospheric contamination from testing. That leaves underground testing the only availabl% alternative-a far more expensive and time-consuming process. Some treaty opponents have all but dis- counted the value of eliminating the con- tinuing risks of rising pollution from test- ing. Granted, to the best of our present knowledge, the dangers from fallout are slight. But even the slightest risk-when it is, unnecessary, and avoidable, is a fool- hardy undertaking. As the President said in his July 26 nationwide speech "this is not a natural health hazard-and it is not ' a statistical issue," No one is able to-say now what physical damage increasing fallout levels might precipitate. No one is able to say now what mutations might occur in future generations-mutations brought about by high fallout levels. But all agree there is a risk-the only disagreement being as tt how great it is. I am sure that no one hails this treaty as an absolute guarantee that all the in- tended purposes will be faithfully fulfilled by all the parties. Much debate has centered around the record of the Soviet Union-one that is strewn with broken agreements, vio- lated treaties, and soon-forgotten "under- standings." Those who argue that "Russia can't be trusted" do so from valid ground. We can't trust them to keep the agreement, left solely to their own devices. But this treaty is not based on trust; it is not based on .Confidence; it is not based on any no- tionthat there has been an overnight rever- sal of Communist aims or methodology.. Iiistead,'we Will be constantly monitoring the Soviet Union with instruments-for de- tecting nuclear weapons tests which have been developed over the past several years to know what progress was made by the Soviets. Listening devices; seismic instru- ments to'detect earth tremors; detecting of radio signals from the radiation that accom- panits nuclear explosions-as Well as flights and surveillance around the perimeters of the Soviet Union to gather samples of dust and clouds to be tested for radioactive de- bris., The Joint Chiefs of Staff have urged- and the administration has assured-that our current detection system will be ex- panded and improved, through satellitiesto detect outer space tests and other means. With a detection system such as this, any While we can do little to inspect for and detect such preparations, the President has made it clear that our testing facilities Will, be kept "at the ready"-fully capable of an immediate resumption of presently treaty- banned testing if that course of action would be necessary to preserve our present definite supe:riority. Also minimizing the risks in- volved in sudden Soviet treaty abrogation will be continuation of underground tesits, which the scientific community agrees al- most unanimously will maintain our present lead in overall nuclear capability. Balancing the risks, and approaching the treaty with a realistic outlook as to ,the the agreement Itself and the past perform- ances of the Soviet Union our overall na- tional security will increase. Already pos- sessing a nuclear force described by Secretary McNamara as "manifestly superior," a point which has not been contradicted by any re- sponsible or knowledgeable testimony or evidence, the United States does nob; need further atmospheric tests to: (1) Insure that our weapons systems will survive a Soviet attack and penetrate Soviet defenses; or (2) To develop and depoly an antimissile defense. Further-the United States long ago made a firm decision not to pursue attempts to de- velop an extremely high-yield weapon. We have instead centered our program around strengthening our defenses and increasing the tactical effectiveness--the deliver- abili.ty-of our nuclear striking power. Test- ing in the atmosphere is not an essential part of that program. The treaty, I believe, represents an op- portunity to take the first step in the di- rection of peace. It is only the beginning of a long, slow and precarious journey. But the real task of reaching the ultimate goal lies in the future. As I see it, the task is threefold-and each step equally important as the others. First, we must maintain all necessary safe- guards to keep the United States strong in our defenses; to protect against the danger of surprise abrogation; and to continue our efforts against the spread of Communist aggression. If we fail this, the treaty may fulfill the worst fears of its opponents, and instead of moving us toward peace, move us toward war. I am convinced that this Nation is committed to and determined to carry out this first task. Second, we must keep exploring for fur- ther steps toward peace; toward further agreements which can be adequately po- liced; toward further measures which can strengthen international law and interna- tional security. If we fail this, the treaty will lead only to an isolated signpost on a dead end road. I am convinced that the treaty will In no way alter the course of U.S. policy of an unrelenting search for permanent peace, but will in fact, bolster our efforts in that direction. Third, we must reorient our thinking. While it will be necessary to `continue the development of our nuclear strength, we must bring to an end our concentrated pur- cheating on the test ban would have only suit; of nuclear strength as an end in itself. the most remote chance of going undetected. If -the allout, unlimited arms race of the With a detection system such as this. the United States has -concluded, according to Secretary McNamara, that "the Soviet Union could obtain no major results by testing in the` atmosphere and deep space or under- last decade is merely transformed into an allout, underground arms race, then the main thrust-the main promise-of the treaty will be lost. We must learn to live with the idea that mankind may at ]cast ,tection and identification." In addition to the risk of Soviet testing on the sly, there is also the recognized risk that instead of attempting prohibited tests clandestinely they would make preparations for a rpassive test series, and then, in a sur- riae rhove suddenl abr ate or nullif p y y I., we persevere in these tasks with the same Intensity that we used in bringing about this treaty, we have every valid. reason to hope that we have Indeed taken the first, though admittedly small, step toward peace. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on the treaty and resume testing. On the basis of experience with the 19Ti8-6l moratorium behalf of the Senator from Wyoming we must be prepared for this occurrence. [Mr. McGEE7, I ask unanimous consent Approved For Release 2004/03111 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 x,Approved Fpi Release 2004/ 31:1 CIA-;RQQf 0383R00O10021 O008-2 1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16523 ' Above and beyond all these, material Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I clear knowledge, in a state of steady im- things, these pioneers had the essential in- have now arrived at a decision on the provement. And, further, I rely on the gredient for success-faith in their own ability proposed nuclear test ban treaty. In President's clear assurance that we will that latie to meet aheadeet. and They surmount kneewthaat t hostile ilen In n- doing so, I have carefully reviewed the instantly act to protect our security, if knew ,that or, the adversities of weather might hearings and committee reports on the and when the Soviet Union is detected make life extremely difficult, but they be- test ban treaty. I have read and listened violating the treaty. lievei that they could adjust to those dif- to the debate in the Senate Chamber. Most important of all, I will vote for ficulties and conquer them. And I have had a chance to interrogate the treaty because of a point made by the And so piust we have the determination to supporters of the treaty on the floor of brilliant opponent of the treaty, Dr. Ed- accept the challenge of this treaty. Cer- the Senate on some of the military im- ward Teller, in his masterly attack on it. tainly, there are risks involved and certainly there Is required eternal vigilance. But plications of the treaty that troubled me Dr. Teller argued that this treaty fun- these were normal conditions on the Ironxier the most. damentaly- serves not to stop the phy- and they are, unfortunately, normal condi- The way, the treaty has been handled sical production of the arms race, or the tions in the cold war, ' is a great credit to the U.S. Senate. I deployment of devastating nuclear weap- As Others have said, this treaty is no giant say this as one whose duties did not ons. This treaty strikes at the crux- stride toward peace. and tranquility. But it bring him into special responsibility with the fount of military power: the oppor- Is a, small step in the right direction, an regard to the treaty. I do not serve on tunity to push back the frontiers of opportunity to set a more favorable course any of the committees that have compe- knowledge about nuclear explosions in toward the ultimate goals of peace and na- tional ,security. I am convinced that we dare tence on any phase of this treaty. So I the atmosphere. This treaty will pre- rnot.ignore this chance. We cannot leave can appraise with some perspective the vent us from discovering truth: the truth for our descendants a ,legacy of doubt and manner in which this treaty has been about the prospects for nuclear weap- obstinacy in response to opportunity. We handled. onry in the atmosphere. cannot,forever refuse to face the challenge The Committee on Foreign Relations Mr. President, John Stuart Mill wrote means of a lamgng eanseto reach the ultimate goal has discharged its prime responsibility of the sacredness of truth in his essay brilliantly. Statements made to the "On Liberty," the greatest political essay I believe that this treaty offers a chance to make a lasting peace-not in the treaty itself committee by the Nation's most compe- ever composed in the English language. or in the events in the next b years, but pos- tent and responsible experts and the Few men in history have ever had a more sibly in the next generation. And it is a committee's comprehensive interrogation complete reverence for truth than Mill; chance that is consistent with the nmainte- of these experts represent a model of and yet, in this greatest defense in the nance of our national security.' searching scrutiny. Any Senator unin- English language of mankind's right to The treaty would not substantially change formed on this treaty after these hear- seek the truth and to speak the truth, our nuclear position vis-a-vis the Russians for it would preserve a status quo that in ings can only be uninformed because he Mill recognized a fundamental reality total finds Vs maintaining a superior posi- failed to read them. about the truth: that mankind in fact tion. The unique participation in these often has turned away from knowledge The treaty- would not bind our hands in hearings by members of the Atomic En- and truth. He did so in the execution time of war or in case of a surprise violation ergy Committee and the Armed Services of Socrates and the crucifixion of Christ. of the treaty by, the Soviets. in either case, Committee served the happy purpose of Repeatedly throughout history truth has the treaty becomes an immediate dead letter, bringing the special knowledge of these been crushed and buried, to rise, if ever, The treaty is not based on any unwar- members in the militar ages later. ranted trust of the Soviet Union's good in- y and scientific tentions nor, is it the first step in a national implications into focus on the treaty. But what this treaty begins to do in its self-delusion that will reduce our desire to Unlike some able Members of this small, halting, limited way is not to force protect our Nation and way of life. If we body, I believe that the Senate Prepared- the truth-speakers to their death, not to are to commit suicide or sell the Nation down ness Subcommittee of the Armed Serv- suppress truth or to smother truth, but the river, no-treaty can prevent it or cause it. ices Committee performed a very impres- to channel the brilliant and precious If our national leaders and our Military Es- sive and useful service b holding and limited scientific knowledge that we lessons of almost a score of cold war years, hearings on the treaty and issuing its have in this world a little-and only a there is little hope for us now. own highly critical report on the treaty. little-away from the search after the What the treaty is, then, is a chance, a Frankly, this report gave me a further truths about the more efficient destruc- small chance; to improve the outlook for hu-. very important insight into the military tion of mankind and, I hope-by im- man survival to wage the battle for human consequences of the treaty which i plication at least-toward the vast unex- freedom and the democratic way of life on would have otherwise missed. plored areas of ignorance that engulf us. dines less sanguinary than the nuclear battle- Selo and to eliminate the Debate on the floor on this treaty has we live in an ocean of ignorance about of nuclear fallout What we do uncharted unch here will be been the most enlightening and helpful our own world, and, of course, the uni- weighed dangers weighed on the scales of history. I am con- that has been heard in this body in a verse. We live on a tiny island of knowl- ftdent that we will not be found wanting. long time. Senators have, not merely edge. We can magnify our knowledge Tiny as the immediate material impact of delivered "canned" speeches. For days a thousandfold-yes, a millionfold-and this treaty will be at the outset, it is none- they have submitted to interrogation still our ignorance of God's plan is theless bigger than all of us here-in fact that has emphasized and re-emphasized pathetically large. bigger than life itself. It rides the wave of the critical problems involved in the What a travesty on man's wisdom that, the history noof our t the inevitability oresus treaty. Some of the questioning has beset by this unending challenge to find nothing i of change - the kind been repetitive, but even that has been the truth, we impose immense taxes on no man heieis s wise change and enough in to which foretell. But But useful in hammering home the answers our people to focus the precious scientific the conscience of that history hangs heavily to the most troublesome questions. energy and ability we do have to peer over the heads of the Members or this. body Mr. President, I will vote for the treaty. into the one limited microscope of self- at this moment. ,No:man here can pretend In doing so I recognize that we cannot, destruction to discover more and more -to know what tomorrow holds. Nor can any and in this treaty do not, trust the So- and more and more about how we can one of us, be so absurd as to assume an viet Union to keep its part of the bargain more efficiently wipe out mankind on omniscience, denied. us by the Lord. Yet on faith. there are those who want to be certain, who earth. One would think that this is the want to be sure. Unfortunately, we can't I rely on the assurance of the most only kind of knowledge that remained wait until-to-morrow-in order to make our competent military and scientific brains to challenge our abilities. judgments in hindsight. Tomorrow has to in and out of our Government that we I hope and pray that this limitation on be taken on faith today. can detect any Russian atmospheric nu- the channeling of our scientific energies what the treaty does for us, then, is win clear tests that could give them a signifi- in the field of destruction will permit a .chance-albeit a small chance-to bring cant advantage by violating the treaty. these magnificent scientific intellects to peace to mankind, The price we have al- I rely oh the assu ready rance of the Presi- work in the positive areas of making it paid for that chance through two world was ought to haunt us every night. dent that we will take full advantage of possible to live longer and better and What we with it on this occasion the fu- our rights under the treaty to keep our happier and more constructive lives and ture generations now looking over our shoul- nuclear defense, including our retalia- not to bring quicker and more devastat- d....... tor A-4- ...,....a derc alnna will stand l,. j u ent t' Approved For Release 2004/03111 CIA-RDP65BO0383RO00100210008=2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP`65B00383R000100210008-2 16524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18 No one can study the hearings and re- sharply -diminished-faith that the I am satisfied that the treaty does not ports and debates on the treaty without Soviet Union will not blunder uninten- inhibit our use cf nuclear weapons in the developing serious misgivings. The tionally into war. But when we multi- defense of our country. treaty does indeed involve risks of sudden ply this knowledge by 10 or 20'nations I am satisfied that the treaty does not massive Russian violation that might the chances of accident become, over prohibit cooperation with our allies in give the Russians an advantage. I admit time, close to a sure thing. every way needed to improve their de- that. Here is the risk this treaty would fense, including the realization of a But the treaty also begins a small, help--a little-but help begin to prevent. multilateral nuclear force with our gradual, limited move toward limiting For many more reasons far too num- NATO allie^. the nuclear knowledge that will certainly crous to mention, including especially the I am satisfied that the treaty cannot destroy civilization if limitations are not sure evil of increasing fallout in the be amended without ratification by the somehow forged. atmosphere, I support the treaty. And United States, which would necessarily Of course, it is a weakness of the treaty I. do so in the fervent hope that it will require submission of the amendment to that Red China and France are outside be a beginning toward the aims control the Senate, for its advice and consent its agreement. But the governments of which will take years of patient, pains- to such ratification. these countries as their current leaders taking effort to achieve and which, in the I am satisfied on these points because, pass from the scene will be increasingly long run, is essential to the survwal of as a result oi? the debate generated by pressured to limit their testing and their civilization on this planet. the proposed reservations, I am satisfied nuclear advances, if not to adhere to the Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the tak- that the clear end the reasonable mean- treaty. ing of the vote on the question of Senate ing of the provisions of the treaty itself The treaty will slow down the prolifer- approval of the nuclear test ban treaty supports the conclusions I have stated. ation of knowledge. 'A nation that does will be a momentous occasion in the his- Therefore, I see no need for reserva- not test is far more loath to pass the torn of the United States. Although the tions. knowledge that is power-and death and treaty is a limited one, with limited ob- I am satisfied, further, that in the destruction-over to any other sovereign jectives, it has serious and far-reaching area in which the treaty permits an in- entity. With that knowledge nuclear implications for the future of this Nation crease of knowledge, including under-se of k power score could be within the capability of the world. because of its implications, it edge will be pu sued to asagre at an ex-- in view of the geometric is imperative that we cast with care our tent as is needed for the safety of the a at i s worse, nations. What escalation of nuclear knowledge based on votes on the question of approval of the Uniind Statesision of whether resolution testing in the past 15 years, a simi- treaty. lar escalation in the next few years could l: have read the treaty, the President's of the Cuban problem should be attached make nuclear power a possibility for any messages, the committee reports, and the as a condition of ratification, I am satis- sovereign nation, including Luxembourg various published analyses. I have re- fled that the result of attaching such. a and Gabon. It is the development of viewed the testimony and the debate. condition would be destruction of the nuclear knowledge that could make it My objective has been to test the treaty treaty, but without solving the Cuban such a would simple with very little equipment o dl and against the criticisms by its opponents, analyze it in the light of the argu- be, In effe t, to support a Policy that we simple processing tocape- develop and ments to by its supporters. - should do nothing to resolve any one of weapons s of f immense se destructive ?My hope is on the side of a peaceful our differences with the Soviet Union, bfix'' and uncontaminated world; my concern unless we can resolve all our differences i is the vgtnt of this treaty that it is on the side of the security and safety at one and the same time. I do not be-ns, be very ei and is to from m steer of our country; my.mind is focused on lieve that we can achieve such an end, maanki nkind''s s scientific genius awr the logic of the arguments of both sides unless and until we are ready to make thI knowled that th. e to the dispute over the question of rati- a beginning. say that the proliferation of nuclear fication. If the treaty merits our support, it destructive power, the ownership of the It is clear that this issue is not one- does so on its own, without additions or. capacity to kill tens of millions of people sided. Some express unqualified sup- subtractions? without our making it more by fifty or even a 'hundred countries, port; others urge unqualified opposition. than it is or less than it appears to be. would almost certainly in time mean the Some would require resolution of the If it is to be nullified, that should be cataclysm, Armageddon for mankind. Cuban problem as a condition precedent with one stroke, on the issue of ratifica- Many of the countries of the world to approval. Still others, although they tion. are and will be dictatorships, often mill- applaude the objectives of the treaty, Should we approve this treaty or tary dictatorships. Continuance of the believe its purposes could have been should we withhold our consent? That spreading of nuclear knowledge means stated more clearly, that its application is the central issue; that is the question than any one of these dictators in a fit to our security and defense requirements we must decide. of desperation or folly or stupidity or could have been expressed more pre- I would not for a moment detract from masochism or megalomania could kick cisely, that the application to this treaty the complicated issues surrounding the off world destruction. This is what pro- of the Senate's constitutional duty to treaty. I would not suggest that the de- liferation of knowledge means. approve treaties is ambiguous. cision for any one of us is a simple one. And even if we assume that we have The proposed reservations and the But, however complicated, however awe- seen the end of acts of great evil by arguments of those who advance them some the decision, it is our duty to face men. In power=and how naive an as- have served useful purposes. They have the problem and to make the choice. sumption-we cannot ignore the mathe- served to highlight the pertinent ques- As I have thoroughly examined the matical certainty that with scores of tions bearing upon our security and de- arguments of the opponents, I find they nations handling these nuclear weapons `fense requirements which the treaty lead back to two fundamental assump- someone, somewhere, sometime, will set raises. They have served to broaden our tions: First, that we cannot afford to one off over another country where it understanding of the effect of the treaty give up testing.in the atmosphere, under will cause death and destruction, and on our national interests. The discus- water, or in outer space; and second, then the capacity, of mankind to pull signs they have generated have resulted that in any event, we cannot trust the back will be terribly tested. in definition and clarification of the Russians, and. that any treaty with them In spite of books and motion pictures terms of the treaty as they relate to is an invitation to delusion and disaster. to the contrary, i have faith that our the points raised by the reservations. The first question involves ,% judgment Air Force has put the human and me- I am satisfied, as a result, that ratiflca- on the relative strength of the Soviets chanical safeguards into effect that will tiion of the treaty will not mean recogni- and ourselves in nuclear weaponry, the prevent an Air Force accident. But no tion of East Germany or other treaty improvements in weaponry which we man no man-can ever be a thousand signers whose governments are not al- might gain from further testing in the percent sure in any and all circum- ready recognized by our Government. three environments proscribed by the stances. I have equal faith in our Navy I am "satisfied that we can withdraw treaty, the gains the Soviets might and Army. I have similiar if less faith from the treaty immediately, in the event achieve from similar testing, the risks in the United Kingdom's protections of a treaty violation by the Soviets, with- of clandestine enfallouttests, resulting from the hazards fu of against accident, and some-though out a 90-day delay. Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 ? tier testing, the dangers inherQnt'in an much to gain from curtailing the spread escalating nuclear-arms race involving of nuclear testing and weapons to other more nations, and the international po- nations. We know independent nations litical advantages to be gained or lost cannot be controlled completely, even by by such a treaty. The balance of such their allies. Khrushchev has learned risks, the President has argued, favors this, much to his anguish and distress . ratification of the treaty. The abolition of all nuclear weapons After reviewing the information, pro- tests would, it seems to me, be in the So- vided by the Foreign Relations Commit- viets' interests as well as ours. This, I tee and the Preparedness Subcommit- think, has been the reason for the grop- tee, together with other documents and 14g efforts of both countries on the test testimony, I agree with. the President on ban treaty issue over several years. this point. We cannot assure absolute The trouble with total prohibition, security in this world; we can only ap- however, is the loophole the Russians proach it. sought through the refusal to allow on- Neither course open to us-ratification site inspections of underground tests. or nonratification=-can guarantee peace, Such a loophole would be in their best security, and survival. interests, but not in ours. It would not Having satisfied myself on the first have given us a clear opportunity to question, I faced the second: Can we protect our interests in the event of a trust the Russians-to honor the treaty? violation. The present treaty, however, There are disagreements as to the num- does give us the opportunity to protect ber of treaties the Soviets have honored ourselves. It offers no opportunity for and the number of those they have abro- significant clandestine tests. We do not gated. But whatever the detailed figures, rely on expressions of good faith; we ? the fact which remains is that they have rely on the technological facts which honored some treaties, and have broken make. the limited agreements possible; more, we rely on the determination of this Na- In evaluating the treaty, we should, tion to keep its guard up, without panic, therefore, assume the possibility of its without the aggressive stance which violation by the Soviet Union. stems from fear. Are we, then, inviting ourselves Into Mr. President, I shall vote for this another Munich, as some opponents have treaty. I do so without reservations. charged,, if we approve this treaty? Are I .do so, not because I expect it to bring .all the arguments about the text of the the millenium, but because I believe the treaty and its relative values if it were treaty is what the President says it is: observed ,meaningless, because we cannot a way to "get back out from the shadows trust the Russia s to keep a bargain or to of war and seek out the way of peace." bargain in good faith? If the answers To do otherwise, it seems to me, would to these questions are "yes," if we must be to reject the possibility of a rational accept the proposition that it never pays relationship between ourselves and the to enter into an agreement with the So-. Soviet Union, and to accept the inevita- viets, then we must adopt a pessimistic, bility of force as the only conceivable not to say hopeless, outlook on the future arbiter of our differences. of the world. Under such a view, we are Are we more fearful of negotiation doomed to a life of suspicion, with accel- than we are of nuclear war? erated weapons research and testing, - Are we less confident of our ability to hair trigger preparedness, and the ever- wage peace than we are of our ability r p esent danger of instant, universal an- to wage war? nihilation. Which course holds the greater prom- I view with horror such a prospect. ise for peace, security, and survival-to But in good conscience I must face it, agree in the circumstances we are con- and I have. Having faced it, having real- sidering, or to disagree with the Soviet ized its possibility, having examined the Union under all conceivable circum- logic which leads to the abyss, I return to stances? the question: Can we at no time, under It seems to me that the alternatives, no circumstances, reach an agreement however stated, are clear. All of us, I with the Russians on any major issue? am sure, have weighed them carefully, I think we can, if the agreement is in impressed by their grave implications. I the self-interest of each of us, and if we choose the course offered by the treaty, are In a position to protect our interests in the hope and belief that it holds the if the agreement.is broken. greater promise for the future. of man- I believe it would be in our interests kind, and In the Interests of the Russians to When I have voted for this treaty, I abolish all nuclear testing except that de- can say to my children, "I have tried to signed for peaceful,and necessary pur- give you a world in which you will not poses under international supervision. be poisoned by the silent, insidious Each of us has much, to gain from the re- hazards of nuclear fallout"; I can say which I believe lays the issue very squarely before the Senate. The Sena- tor has performed a magnificent service in doing so. Mr. MUSKIE. I am grateful to my majority leader. COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SEN- ATE SESSIONS ON THURSDAY AND FRIDAY Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I have cleared the request I am about to make with the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKS#N], and the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON]. I ask unanimous consent that the Sub- committee on Manpower and Employ- ment be authorized to meet on Thursday and Friday mornings, to take testimony on unemployment problems during the sessions of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it Is so ordered. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 4505. An act to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to entertain, hear, and determine a motion for a new trial on the claim of Robert Alexander; H.R. 8009. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide certain veterans with urgently needed nursing home care and nurs- ing care facilities while reducing the cost to the United States of caring for such veter- ans, and for other purposes; H.R.8100. An act to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad Retire- ment Tax Act, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Temporary Extended Railroad Unemployment Insurance Benefits Act of 1961 to increase the creditable and taxable compensation, and for other pur- poses; and H.R.8200. An act to further amend the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, to provide for shelter in Federal structures, to authorize payment toward the construction or modification of approved public shelter space, and for other purposes. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill (S. 1952) to extend and broaden the authority to insure mort- gages under sections 809 and 810 of the National Housing Act, and it was signed by the President pro tempore. auction of the hazards of radioactive to my constituents, "I have voted for HOUSE BILLS REFERRED fallout. We?.live in the same world; we this treaty because it is a sensible step The following bills were severally read breathe the same air; we are all human toward a rational world"; I can say to twice by their titles, and referred, as in- beings. Each of us has much to gain the critics of this treaty, "I have faith dicated: from Inhibiting of the arms race. The in the strength of America, in its Institu- H.R. 4505. An act to confer jurisdiction search for security through better weap- tions, in its leadership, and in the wis- on the Court of Claims to entertain, hear, ons, In this age, leads to greater tension, dom of acting with your eyes open and and determine a motion for a_ new trial on not INS. .F,+ach step leads us closer to the your feet on the ground." the claim of Robert Alexander; to the Com- point where we go beyond the.balance of Mr. /+'MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I mittee on the Judiciary. H R 8009 A terror a t t t d . . . n ac n o amend title 38, United en er an area where any step Comm,d the Senator from Maine for a States Code, to provide certain veterans with IS fatal, not to one, .but both; not to most moving speech, in which the Sena- urgently needed nursing home care and nurs- . .. Further each of us ha f some. but to all h s or . as Approved For Release 2004/011 GIA-RDP65E300383R000100210008=2 Approved For R2Iease 2004/03/11-: C1A-RDP65B003a3R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16526 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 18 to the United States of caring for such vet- erans, and for other purposes; and H.R.8106. An act to amend the Railroad- Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad Retire- ment Tax Act, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Temporary Extended Railroad Unemployment Insurance Benefits Act of 1961 to increase the creditable and taxable compensation, and fqr other pur- poses; to the Committee on Labor and Pub- lic 'Welfare. H .R. 8200. An act to further amend the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amend- ed, to provide for shelter in Federal struc- tures, to authorize payment toward the con- struction or modification of approved public shelter space, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY The Senate resumed the consideration of Executive M (88th Cong., 1st sess.), the4reaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. MODIFICATION OF 't7NANIMOUS AGREEMENT' Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, again with the concurrence' of the dis- tinguished minority leader, "the' Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] and also the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mi. CunTIsI, f wish to propound a unan- imous-consent request for a change-in the unanimous-consent agreement al- ready entered. I.ask unanimous consent that on Tues- day morning, instead of meeting at 10:30 a.fm and voting on the resolution of rati- fication at 11 a.m., the Senate meet at 10 a.m., and 'vote on the resolution at 10:20. 'he PRESIDING OF'F'ICER. Is there objection? 141r. GORE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I shall not bb- j eet-I should like, first, to congratulate the Senator, upon his facility in reach- ing an agreement. However, if there is to be a yea-and-nay vote on the Gold- water reservation, I was hoping that the vote could be postponed until Tuesday morning also. Is that not possible? Mr. MANSFIELD. 'I plead with the Senator: Mr. GORE. I withdraw the reserva- tion of objection. The PRESIDING OPFIC R. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana? The Chair hears none; and it Is so ordered. Mr. GORE. Mr. President, during'the c4larse of the debate yesterday with the distinguished senior Senator from Geor- gia [Mr. RUSSELL], I"made the f oilowiiag statement which appears on page 16275 nt?tha fx.ECnunc tim-Ily The fact is that the Soviets have never control fiver an ugremiiens u, u ueLg ~u~ seems to me, Mr. President, that time at any time agreed to accept"a single mean- nuclear test ban would be the national It has come now e put an end once and time for Union onsite inspection within the Soviet means of detection. all to nuclear tests, to draw a line through Union. Not an international means, but a such tests. The moment for this is very, There was some discussion about the national means. very appropriate. Left behind is a period accuracy of my statement. I suggested Would the Russians decide whether an of utmost acuteness and tension in the that I would search the records and, inspection was necessary? Under their Caribbean. Now we have united our hands make a statement today with respect to insistence at the time the chairman to engage closely in other urgent interna- it, wrote the letter, that would be for them tional matters and, in particular, in such a problem which has been ripe for so long as I have before me a copy of the letter to decide. It would be a matter of invi- cessation of nuclear tests. which Chairman Khrushchev wrote to tation, not a mater of right by a party A certain ,relaxation of international ten- President Kennedy on December 10, to the agreement, and not a matter of sion which has emerged now should, in my 1462, which I shall ask to have printed right by an international agency. view, facilitate this. in the RECORD. I should like to read a We had not been able to reach any The Soviet Union does not need war. I paragraph of the letter, and then I shall agreement whatsoever on the budget for think that war does not promise bright pros- domment upon tkat paragraph: the inspection teams. We had been un- pects for the United States either. If in the Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 We took all this into account and, in order able to reach any agreement as to who to overcome the deadlock and to arrive at would provide the money, as to who last at a mutually acceptable agreement, we would pay the expenses, as to who would would agree, in those cases when it would buy the equipment, and in what be considered necessary, to two to three in- spections a year on the territory of each of amounts; or who would have authority the nuclear powers in the seismic areas where to employ mernbers of the inspection some suspicious earth's tremors might cc- teams, to dispatch them, and to exer- cur. It goes without saying that the basis cise administrative control., of control over an agreement on under- We had not been able to reach a spe- ground nuclear test ban would be the na- ciflc agreement with the Soviets in any tional means of detection in comhcnatiion respect whatsoever as to the right of with automatic seismic stations. Onsite in- free access to an area where a suspicious spections could be carried on with tlis pre- cautions mentioned Ambaf event might occur. Indeed, as I shall cautions against pre- any y misuse of control for pr purposes Dean point out, Chairman Khrushchev in his r of espionage. - letter excluded vast areas of the Soviet Union. I advert again to his letter: It was this letter which gave rise to In the seismic areas where some suspicious the impression, widely held in the United earth tremors might occur. States and throughout the world, that Mr. Khrushchev had agreed to permit The United States had been insisting two or three onsite inspections in the that an underground explosion could be Soviet Union. If we examine the pa:ra- attained in nonseismic areas, as well as graph carefully-as I propose to do--we in seismic areas. find that again something appears in A careful reading of Chairman Khru- form at first glance, but, when examined shchev's letter in the light of the posi- carefully, is found to be without sub- tions which the Soviets were taking at l l th t t1- b stance. At the time Chairman Khrushchev t been able: to h d h l tt w no a er we rote t e e , reach an agreement with the Soviets as to what kind of inspection, if any, should be made. We had not been able to reach any agreement with the Soviets as to who should make the Inspection. The Soviets were insisting upon national inspection, upon self-inspection. We had not been able to reach an agreement with them about what kind of an inspec- tion team would be used; about the makeup of the inspection team-so many seismologists, so inany chemists, so many nuclear experts, so many Russians;, so many Americans, so many international representatives, and so on. We had not been able, even, to reach an agreement th'it the team would be allowed to have a e reveas a the conference ta letter does not in fact represent an agree- ment to accept a single meaningful on- site inspection In the Soviet Union. I am fully prepared to reassert the statement I made yesterday, that the Soviets have rot proposed, and did not at any time propose, or agree to accept, or permit, a single meaningful onsite inspection in the Soviet Union. This is not a major question in the debate on the treaty. So far as I know, it is not even at issue. Since it arose in a colloquy between the distinguished and able senior Senator from Georgia and me, I agreed to search the annals of the 'rflany conferences and determine whether the facts were as I believed them to be and present the facts to the Sen- ate in the in serest of accuracy of the record- Geiger counter or any other instruments. Before expressing some general views it had never been made clear through agreement as to the right of the United 'on the pending treaty, I ask unanimous States or of an international agency to consent that Chairman Khrushchev's make an inspection. The Soviets in- letter to President Kennedy of December sisted inspection could be conducted on 19, 1962, President Kennedy's reply of Soviet territory only upon the invitation December 28, 1962, and Khrushchev's of the Soviets. letter of January 7, 1963, may be printed I revert to the Chairman's letter: in the RECORD at this point. We would agree, In those cases when it There being no objection, the letters would be considered'. necessary, to two- to were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, three inspections a year. as follows: NOTE FROM KnSUsi'iC73EV To PRESIDENT KEN- Who would decide when it was noes- NEDT--DECEMBER 19, 1962 sa,fy? The Russians were iris Sting that In our recent correspondence related to they would decide When it was necessary; the events in the Caribbean area we have ,and that the inspection would be niade touched on the question of cessation of nit- upon their invitation. clear weapon tests. Today I would like to By whom? I refer again to the para- come back again to that problem and to set graph in the letter : forth my views concerning possible ways of ould be mu- hi h i c w on w It goes without sa`Ving that the basis of its speediest solut to both our sides. 1 968 C6K6kESSIRNA.L RECORD.- SENATE 16527 past after every war America used to in- also, having taken, If necessary, precau- creasg its economic potential andto accumu- tionary measures against use of such trips DECEMBER 28, 19o r late more and more, wealth, now war with for reconnaissance. Thus our proposal on DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: D I was very glad to et- the use of modern ,rocket-nuclear weapons automatic seismic stations includes elements ceive your letter of December 19, 1962, set- will stride across _seas and, oceans within of international control. This is a major ting forth your views on nuclear tests. minutes.. Thermonpciear catastrophe will act of good will on the part of the Soviet There appear to be no differences between bring enormous losses and sufferings to the Union. your views and mine regarding the need for American people as well as to other peoples I will tell you straightforwardly that be.. eliminating war in this nuclear age, Per- on earth. To prevent this we must, on the fore making this proposal I have consulted haps only those who have the responsibility basis of complete equality and with just re- thoroughly the specialists and after such for controlling these weapons fully realize gard for each other's interests, develop be- consultation my colleagues in the Govern- the awful devastation their use would bring. tween ourselves peaceful relations and solve ment and I came to a conclusion that so far Having these considerations in mind and all issues through negotiations and mutual as the Soviet Union is concerned the above- with respect to the issue of a test ban, I concessions, said considerations on the measures on our therefore sincerely hope that the suggestions One of such questions with which the Part are well founded and, it seems to us, that you have made in your letter will prove governments of our countries have been deal- they should not cause objections on the part to be helpful in starting us down the road lug for many years is the question of con- of the American side. to an agreement. I am encouraged that you cluding a treaty banning all tests of nuclear You, Mr. President, and your representa- are prepared to accept the principle of onsite weapons. tlves point out that without at least a mini- inspections. These seem to me to be essen- Both of us stand on the same position mum number of onsite inspections you will tial not just because of the concern of our With regard to the fact that national means not manage to persuade the U.S. Senate to Congress but because they seem to us to go of detection are sufficient to control banning ratify an agreement on the cessation of tests. to the heart of a reliable agreement ending experimental nuclear explosions in outer This circumstance, as we understand, ties nuclear testing. space, in the atmosphere, and underwater. You and does not allow you to sign a treaty If we are to have peace between systems So far, however, we have not succeeded in which would enable all of us to abandon with far-reaching ideological differences, we finding a mutually acceptable solution to for good the grounds where nuclear weapons must find ways for reducing or removing the the problem of cessation of underground are tested. Well, if this is the only difficulty recurring waves of fear and suspicion which tests. The main Obstacle to an agreement on the way to agreement, then for the noble feed on ignorance, misunderstanding or what is the demand by the American side of inter- and humane goal of ceasing nuclear weapon appear to one side or the other as broken national control and inspection on the terra- tests we are ready to meet you halfway in agreements. To me, the element of assur- tories of nuclear powers over cessation of this question, once is vital to the broader development of underground nuclear tests. I would like to We noted that on this October 30, in con- peaceful relationships. believe that you yourself understand the versation with First Deputy Foreign Min- With respect to the question of onsite tional means. are sufficient to control also York, your representative Ambassador Dean this kind of tests and be sure that . agree- stated that, in the opinion of the U.S. Gov- ment is observed by any side. But so far ernment, it would be sufficient to carry on you do not want to recognize openly this 2-4 'onsite inspection each year on the ter- dctue,l.state of things and to accept it as ritory 'of the Soviet Union. According to a basis for, concluding without delay an Ambassador Dean's statement, the United agreement on cessation of tests. States would also be prepared to work out !Striving to find a mutually acceptable measures which would rule out any possi- basis for agreement the . Soviet Union has bility of carrying on espionage under the made lately an important step toward the cover of these inspection trips including such West and agreed to installing automatic measures as the use of Soviet planes piloted seismic stations. This idea, as is known, by Soviet crews for transportation of in- was put forward not by us. It was intro- spectors to the sites, screening of windows duced by British scientists during the recent in the planes, prohibition to carry photo- meeting in London of the participants of cameras, and en forth. Pugwash movement. Moreover, it is well We took all this into account and, in order known to us that when this idea was pro- to overcome the deadlock and to arrive at posed, it was not alien to your scientists last at a mutually acceptable agreement, we who were in London at that time. would agree, in those cases when it would We proposed to install such stations both be considered necessary, to 2-3 inspections a near .the borders of nuclear powers and di- year on the territory of each of the nuclear rectl t i y on he r territories... We stated of our powers in the seismic areas where some sus- agreement that three such stations be ,n_ picious earth's tremors might occur. It goes earthquakes, There-are- three such zones in the Soviet Union where these stations can be installed: central Asian, Altaian and far eastern. In the Opinion of Soviet scientists the most suitable places for locating automatic Seismic stations in the Soviet Union are area of the city of Kokchetav for central Asian zone of the U.S.S.R., area of the city of Bodalbo ,for Altaian zone and area of the. city of Yakutsk for far eastern zone. How- ever, should, as a result of exchange of opinion between our representatives, other places be suggested for locating automatic seismic stations in these seismic zones, we will be ready to discuss this question and find mutually acceptable solution. Beside the above said zones there are two more seismic zones in the Soviet Union- Caucasian and Carpathian. However these coma accept any reasonable provision which you had in mind to protect against your concern that the onsite inspectors might engage in "espionage" enroute to the area of inspection. In a statement at the United Nations, Ambassador Stevenson suggested that the United States would accept any rea- sonable security provision while the inspec- tors were being taken to the site, so long as they had reasonable provision for satisfy- ing themselves that they were actually at the intended location and had the freedom nec- essary to inspect the limited designated area. With respect to the number of onsite in- spections there appears to have been some misunderstanding. Your impression seems to be that Ambassador Dean told Deputy Minister Kuznetsov that the United States might be prepared to accept an annual num- ber of onsite inspections between 2 and 4. Ambassador Dean advises me that the only number which he mentioned in his discus- sions with Deputy Minister Kuznetsov was an agreement on underground nuclear test ?f the u suosd ate decrease in the request ban would be the national means of detec- of the United States as we had previously tion in combination with automatic seismic aen insisting upon a number between 12 20. Union the hoped stations. Onsite inspections could be carried would match I had this motion motion that the Soviet o f t part of the on with the precautions mentioned by Am- United States an equivalent the bassador Dean against any misuse of cntrol the figure of 2 or 3 onsite Inspec motion in for purposes of espionage. had some time ago it it which We believe that now the road to agree- allow. go indicated might ment is straight and clear. Beginning from al. given this matter d on-site in- January 1 of the new year of 1963 the world spections aware has that can be relieved of the roar of nuclear explo- culty a you cre that I diffi- can although I am not sure tt I fully sioris. The peoples are waiting for this, this understand why this should be so. To me, is what the U.N. General Assembly has called an effective nuclear test ban treaty is of for. With the elimination of the Cuban crisis such importance that I would not permit we relieved mankind of the direct menace such international arrangements to become of combat use of lethal nuclear weapons that mixed up with our or any other national impended over the world. Can't we solve, desire to seek other types of information a far simpler question-that of cessation of about the Soviet Union. I believe quite experimental explosions of nuclear weapons sincerely that arrangements could be worked in the peaceful conditions? I think that we out which would convince you and your col- ca., and m??+ d it v--- .,_- --_ o ducting nuclear tests there is peoples or not only our countries But in this connection, your implication ductided practically but of all other countries._ Having solved that on-site inspections should be limited to Of. course,,delivery to and from interns- all alsorecondthis ionsufori that-wet shall be seismic areas also gives us some difficulty. tional center of appropriate sealed equip- able to facilitate working out an agreement It is true that i concern the ordinary course wg e anent .for its periodic replacement at auto- on disarmament and with even more con- Would have coseismic a reas. about weer taking in the un- matic seismic stations in the U.S.S.R. could fidence proceed with solving other urgent identified seismievent coming from an area well be made by Soviet personnel and on international problems, which we and you in which there are not usually earthquakes Soviet planes. However if for such delivery unfortunately are not short of sonnel'were needed we would agree to this DECEMBER 19, 1962. No, 148-13 United States would feel that in such a cir- cumstance the U.S.S.R. would be entitled to .an on-site inspection of such an event occur- Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008?2 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2 16528 Septemb`er 18 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SE* ATE ment ring in out area and. feels tn..t the United testa. We note your agree that instal- territories adjacent to the seismic zones in -cm Pakistan kaido, ations wil States should have the same rights within rove useful automatic ismic nt of- of in- athe nd. Afghanistan, naturally with the con sent its annual quota of inspections. u p P Perhaps your tomment nt would be that a creasing the effectiveness of control over of respective governments. seismic event in another area designated for cessation of underground nuclear explosions. The Soviet Government has named definite inspection'mlght coincide with a highly sen- During the Geneva talks it was justly ob- areas for the location of automatic seismic sitive defense installation: i recognize this served, also by your representatives, that in- stations on the territory of the U.S.S.R. as a real problem but believe that some ar- stallation of such seismic stations would Moreover, Mr. President, taking into account rangement can be worked out which would serve as good means of verifying the correct- your wishes we agree to relocate two stations prevent this unlikely contingency from erect- ness of functioning of national smic eta- the n ore places. your We are sideentitled tot expect ing Your Insuperable obstacle. tions. It is precisely by that also Y.