THE CASE AGAINST THE CONSULAR CONVENTION WITH RUSSIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300040043-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 43
• Publication Date: August 19, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/08/16 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300040043-4
August 19, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Southern California is now looking 800
miles to the north to Washington, where the
Columbia's. runoff into the Pacific is a co-
lossal 151.2 billion gallons a daffy and is used
mostly for power generation, which of course
doesn't consume any water at all.
PAYOFF
The West's water planning has paid off:
California is the fastest growing, richest State
in the Union. Arizona, with a meager an-
nual rainfall of 7.2 inches, is in a better
water position now than the humid East.
President Johnson's home State of Texas
learned about water from a 4-year drought
in the mid-1950's. Mr. Johnson, for one, still
remembers; he recalled last week how Presi-
dent Eisenhower came to the rescue. Now
the State water commission is studying water
needs until 2010, and creating reservoirs
and building systems to transfer water from
the rain-rich eastern sections to the and
west. Next year, a 322-mile pipeline will
bring water from the Saford Dam near Ama-
rillo to 11 cities in the Panhandle. Three
years from now, the Trinity River project
will begin yielding 1.2 billion gallons of water
a day.
While there are encouraging signs around
the country that Americans are recognizing
that water is one of the Nation's most pre-
cious natural resources, the United States is
still destroying water sources faster than
it is developing them. In the Great Lakes,
for example, which contain a quarter of the
world's fresh-water supply, water levels are
dropping and the pollution levels rising. "To
fly over Lake Erie and look down into the
cloudy mess of murderous pollution," Udall
said recently, "is like reading the flyleaf of
a book on the end of civilization." The mes-
sage seems finally to be getting through.
Just last week, the five States involved in
the destruction of Lake Erie agreed to try
to save it, to try to cut back on the tons
of chemical waste that pour into it each
minute of the day.
What worries some about the current crises
is that complacency in the East threatens to
be replaced not by planning, but by hysteria.
It Is fed by dire projections about future
growth in water consumption. These pro-
jections show that, by 1980, water consump-
tion will be double what it was in 1950--
totaling three-fifths of all recoverable surface
waters. And all of this will be tapped by
the year 2000. Such predictions may serve
to encourage advance planning, but Luna
Leopold, among others, questions them. "It
seems inconceivable to me that we are going
to double land under irrigation," he says
by way of example. "Irrigation simply can-
not continue to grow at the old rate." Other
officials complain that the present emergency
in the East is being used to increase the flow
of Federal funds out of Washington and into
the States and municipalities. "People," says
one hydrologist, "are using this drought to
sell a bill of goods."
The search for the panacea must, in the
experts' opinion, be tempered by the realities
of economics, and the possibilities as they
exist now. Weather modification is one such
grand solution, and authorities such as
Revelle consider it worth intensive research.
But it would be a mistake to count on it.
Rainmaking, for example, has so far been a
total failure. President Johnson's desalina-
tion bill is designed "to free mankind from
Nature's tyranny," but salt-free ocean water
can only be transported to inland States
at great cost. "The idea that desalination
will end all our water problems is just non-
sense," says one official.
HIDDEN RESOURCES
The answer more likely lies in the simple,
if tedious and undramatic, process of learn-
ing more about water supply. There hasn't
been a full census of water in the United
States since 1954; every current figure is a
projection or an estimate, and could be far
off 'the mark. The estimated water under-
ground is equivalent to 150 years of rainfall
in the United States-3,000 times more than
is in streams and rivers. . Yet it supplies only
one-fifth of all the water used in the United
States. Where it is brackish in the Midwest,
President Johnson's desalting bill can really
help. Small community plants employing
new techniques could make water available
at reasonable costs. At brackish-water
plants, such as the one at Freeport, Tex., the
technology is being developed, and experience
in nuclear desalting techniques will be gained
at the proposed reactor in Riverhead, NX.,
which will serve 10,000 people.
Somehow, too, the tangle of local, State,
regional, and Federal responsibilities and
rights that water involves, must be straight-
ened out, President Johnson illustrated the
complexities when he said in one sentence
that "this is a time for Federal action," then
added that "Federal action is no substitute
for local responsibility." There is no central
control over the country's water, no coordi-
nating body. Up-to-date figures on the
country's water consumption simply don't
exist.
THE LESSON
The formation of such new groups as the
President's Water Resources Council and the
Department of the Interior's Office of Water
Resources Research should certainly help.
They may have come into existence none too
soon. "Within the next 5 years," predicts
Dr. E. D. Eaton, associate director of the
office, "the Nation will have to make de-
cisions on water projects running into hun-
dreds of billions of dollars. We just don't
know enough about the economics of water
right now to do that."
But some knowledge has been gained in
the water crisis of 1965. Easterners have
learned the hard way what citizens of the
and West have always known. Water is a
resource to be cherished, conserved, and
fought for if necessary. Like a crop, it must
be harvested and used with care and fore-
sight. The alternative is to remain at the
mercy of an inconstant Nature, to rely on the
unreliable, and sooner or later to run dry.
THE CASE AGAINST THE CONSULAR
CONVENTION WITH RUSSIA
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
favorably reported a proposed treaty
with the Soviet Union to establish con-
sular relations between the two countries.
The treaty is now resting on the Execu-
tive Calendar where it could be called
forth at any time.
Newspaper reports indicate, however,
that the Senate Democratic leadership
has abandoned its plans to seek Senate
ratification of this treaty at this time.
I welcome this decision.
For this is a shameful measure which
has been shamefacedly handled by those
who support it.
How else can we see this proposal when
even the administration which gave it
birth has acted so as not to expose it to
close scrutiny for more than a year?
It was signed in Moscow in June of
1964. President Johnson urged Senate
ratification 11 days later. And what
has happened since then? Very, very
little.
There has been a public hearing, ;if
you care to call it that. One adminis-
tration witness appeared.
All of this has been discussed in great
detail in the minority views filed with
the Committee on Foreign Relations and
elsewhere.
20391
The point remains and cannot be
avoided: this treaty is a foundling that
has lain on our doorstep for nearly 400
days. And now even its embarrassed
parents seem unwilling to ask that we
take it in.
When word of the proposed ratification
got out-even in a most subtle manner
mail started coming to congressional of-
fices almost totally in opposition to the
scheme. This cannot be sloughed off as
the outpourings of a small but vocal
minority of the radical right. if my mail
is any indication of public sentiment on
this question, there is a genuine con-
cern-indeed a revolt-against the treaty
at the grassroots.
When the American people learn the
facts' concerning this scheme, there can
be no other reaction.
There are so many reasons to say "No"
to this request, that each Member of this
body could produce a separate one if he
wished to do so. Many Senators on
both sides of the aisle have done so.
For the opposition is not the voice of
partisanship. It is a reasoned opposi-
tion-a many, many reasoned opposi-
tion.
I have not heard one note of opposi-
tion that was purely partisan. I have
not heard one note of . opposition that
was purely a quibble or a disgruntled
tactic of delay.
No, Mr. President, I have not heard one
note of opposition that did not carry with
it, beyond all other sounds, the deep
note of sincere concern for the Republic
and the freedom which we are sworn to
protect on its behalf.
The seeming reluctance with which the
administration has let this treaty trickle
to the doorstep of the Senate is in itself
a sign that there is no enthusiasm for the
treaty at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue although there seems to be some
friendship for it in Foggy Bottom in the
precincts of the State Department.
What have we heard on behalf of the
treaty? We have heard that it may aid
commerce between the Soviet Union and
the United States.
But what have we heard against it?
We have heard the Director of the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation-certainly
a knowledgeable administration spokes-
man-characterize it as the realization of
a long-sought goal of Soviet intelligence
operations.
We have heard a distinguished mem-
ber of the administration's own party
recount the abuse after abuse of Soviet
diplomatic privileges in this country.
We have heard representatives of the
oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe,
such as the Lithuanian American Council
and others, implore us to make clear that
this treaty is not to be interpreted to
mean that the newly extended consular
privileges permit Soviet actions which
would legitimize the Soviet conquests of
the captive nations.
We have heard other members of this
body speak of the incredible immunity
granted Soviet personnel, under this
treaty; immunity from prosecution for
any crime, no matter how treacherous
or dangerous.
We have heard ample debunking of
that favorite excuse for such dismal ex-
ercises; the excuse that says that we will
Approved For Release 2005/08/16 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300040043-4
 Approved For Release 2005/08/16 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300040043-4
20392
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 19, 1965
reap as much advantages from a few Iso-
lated consulates in the Soviet Union as
they will from consulates In many of our
major cities. We should not need the ex-
amination of this treaty to remind us of
the differences between permitting the
agents of tyranny to work freely in a free
country and permitting the agents of
freedom to work in the police state maze
of a tyranny.
Here again, when only such slender
and feathery arguments as that can be
used in defense of such a treaty, we can
see that the weight of clear need and
clear justification Is altogether missing.
This treaty seems just a chance ges-
ture, hardly defended, scarcely wanted,
and beyond any sensible and searching
discussion. It is one of those sometimes
gestures of appeasement which we have
been known to make before and which-
every time without exception-we have
come to regret for good and sufficient
cause as communism continues to violate
its word, violate territory, and violate
civilized political behavior around the
world.
Mr. President, this treaty carries with
it, in its words and scope, so many dis-
advantages that volumes could and, I
hope, will be spoken on them, My hope
is to speak of the treaty beyond Its own
details; to implore its defeat on the basis
of the single, overriding basis of the long-
term security of the Republic and the
long-term cause of freedom throughout
the world.
This treaty cannot be ratified in ignor-
ance of what it does to these long-term
concerns. This treaty must not be rati-
fied because of those concerns.
This Is the wrong treaty, at the wrong
time, and it Is advocated for all the
wrong reasons.
If put before the American people, it
would resoundingly be defeated and re-
jected. If put before the representatives
of all the people, it should receive the
same answer.
It is an essential function of the Sen-
ate that it pull back from the brink of
disaster, those administration moves
made in silence and often In secrecy
which may serve some special and vested
departmental interest but which do not
serve the interest of the people at large.
We are charged by the Constitution
with the balancing of such acts, It is
our duty to say "Yes" when the national
need is clear and it Is our duty, just as
loudly to say "No" when the national
need clearly is being misserved or even
disserved.
It is not wisdom or courtesy that
should impel a Member of this body to
vote against his conscience and good
sense in advising on such a treaty as this.
Conscience and good sense both have
been examined on this treaty and neither
can we therefind any friends for it. No.
To vote for such a treaty against sense
and sensibility would not help this ad-
ministration. Far from it. It would
plunge it, bound by a false solidarity, in-
to a drowning sea of error.
This treaty does not deserve the sup-
ix,rt of this administration, which has
shown its colors so well in opposing
communism on other fronts. Indeed it
has had very little support. And this
administration does not deserve the stig-
ma of being parent of this treaty. This
Is why, Mr. President, I say and say
again that this treaty Is not partisan in
sponsorship or in opposition. We are
joined, despite party, not so much in op-
posing simply a treaty as in supporting
those principles which this treaty so
grievously would weaken.
Let me enumerate. First, and we can
never forget it, we are at war now with
communism. Only technicalities and
diplomatic bowing and scraping ,keep the
dread word itself from official recogni-
tion. But the truth is that we are at war
with communism. And the equally
dreadful truth is that the men with
whom some would have us observe this
treaty are the same men whose power
supports the war against us.
Who in this body honestly can believe
that the espionage which we know be-
yond peradventure would be committed
under this treaty would not serve di-
rectly or indirectly the forces who are
killing our soldiers in Vietnam today?
Who is there in this body who would
care to explain this treaty and the es-
pionage which it fosters and protects-
explain it to the widow or parent of a
marine or paratrooper slain in Vietnam?
No. This treaty Is wholly wrong when
we are so beleaguered by communism.
It is totally wrong sod, should It be rati-
fied against the best conscience of the
people and their representatives, then
not an ocean of blood will wipe out the
folly.
This is not a time, as some say who
would see this treaty slide past us like a
thief in the night, when the Soviet sin-
cerely is seeking new conciliations with
us.
Have they moved to extinguish the
fires in Latin America; fires fed by the
Soviet incursion In Cuba?
Have they moved to end the slow hu-
man sacrifice of the Berlin wall?
Have they moved to ease the tensions
throughout those corridors and ways of
Germany which communism controls?
Have they pinched off the logistics of
death flowing into Vietnam?
Have they stilled the shrill voice of
domestic communism anywhere?
Have they slowed the clandestine traf-
fic in treachery and spying which Is the
principal weight of their diplomatic
pouches and the chief cargo of their
political exports?
They have not, They have not and
do not seek friendship in this consular
treaty. They seek advantages and
opportunities.
They have not and do not seek easing
of the tensions between us-they seek
ways to work beyond those tensions and
to be protected from them, as this treaty
would protect them.
Slam the door on this treaty and we
do not slam the door on hopes for easing
the tensions between us. We would only
slam the door on the Illusions and the
wishful thinking which always have
proved so tempting to communism.
Indeed, it Is such encouragement
which prolong the tensions. Commu-
nism, given an Inch, always has wanted
a hundred miles.
President Johnson sees In Vietnam
precisely a test of our will to resist. He
sees in a failure of that will a failure In
our efforts to keep the peace. For only
the will to resist can keep the peace
against aggressors. We all know that.
I see in this treaty a similar test of
our will to resist, If this golden gift of
espionage and immunity-condemned by
utterances from within the adrninistra-
tior. itself-if this open door to treach-
ery, this one-way street to privilege
abused, if this treaty is ratified we will
again leave communism convinced that
Americans will give, and give, and give,
bend, and bend, and bend. And where
is tae service to peace in that?
God knows that if they thought we
woidd bend and give in in Vietnam we
could expect to fight there forever,
bleeding endlessly. Our hope on every
front is that finally communism will
realize that America cannot be bent for-
ever over any tyrant's knee.
Then we can talk of bargaining for
we will have something with which to
bargain.
Then let this treaty be considered
anew along with the thousand and one
other gestures that civilized nations can
make to form and forge a friendship.
What sort of day would that be? Well,
it would be a day in which Communist
leaders renounced their creed's world-
wit.e plans for political subversion and
dismantled the machinery for It. How
car we talk of consular treaties when
the Soviet by past performance regard
them as only vehicles for unlimited
espionage and subversion?
It would be a day when the last Soviet
technician and the last Soviet missile
had been withdrawn from Cuba. For
how can we speak of a consular treaty
with Soviet guns still aimed at our shores
and from a conquered base in our own
hemisphere?
It would be a day in which peoples
cor.quered and held captive could vote
freely and openly to establish their own
national destiny. For how can we speak
of a consular treaty to promote com-
merce when millions are the victims of a
commerce in captivity?
Mr. President, it would be a far differ-
ent day from this day. And that is why
this wrong treaty comes at the wrong
time as well as for the wrong reasons.
Ratify this treaty and error is ratified,
and communism once again advantaged.
Ratify this treaty and we will pay a price
In history-and In blood.
Such a consular treaty is to promote
the civilized commerce and traffic be-
tween nations. Let us pray for the day
when such a time will call for such a
treaty. But that sort of time must pro-
ceed the treaty. And this is not the
time.
THE RIOTS IN LOS ANGELES
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, the
recent riots in Los Angeles have given
every American cause to wonder about
the good and evil forces which are afoot
in this country and indeed in the world.
My friend, Mr. Clyde Reed, Jr., editor
and publisher of the Parsons (Kans.)
Sun, has dealt with many of the ques-
Approved For Release 2005/08/16 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300040043-4