HEADING OFF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090119-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 119
• Publication Date: January 12, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090119-5
January 12, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
income for the purpose of reducing the
amount of the reported deficit for fiscal
1967.
This is not normal revenue and should
not be treated as such for budgetary
reporting.
One national magazine recently de-
scribed the operations of selling our as-
sets and using the proceeds as though
they were normal revenue as comparable
to pawning the family silver to buy this
week's groceries.
When we add all these items of non-
recurring income which are included in
the figures for this year as though the
amount constituted normal revenue we
find that rather than a $9.7 billion deficit,
we actually have an $18.770 billion deficit
during the current fiscal year, 1967.
I think that Congress and the Amer-
ican people should be made aware of
that fact and should realize that these
are nonrecurring items of income. The
American people should be told that if
our expenditures and our income were
computed in the same manner as they
had been for the past 150 years, prior to
this new, fancy bookkeeping, juggling
system of the Great Society, the reported
deficit for fiscal 1967 would be $18.7 bil-
lion instead of that $9.7 billion now
claimed.
As we approach the question of
whether we must increase taxes, it would
be well for us to recognize that a tax in-
crease alone will not solve our deficit
problems. What we need above all is
the recognition that we cannot afford
many of the fancy ideas which we are
receiving from the executive branch to-
day. This Great Society is too expen-
sive for our pocketbooks.
We must curtail expenditures even in
programs that we all like. We must cut
back on many of these domestic pro-
grams. Otherwise we face a financial
catastrophe in this country. Inflation
is still the No. 1 threat in this country.
I think the President was negligent in
not recognizing this danger a year ago
instead of trying to perpetuate the farce
that we were only operating with a $1.8
billion deficit.
Certainly no man who studied these
figures ever thought that we could fi-
nance a war on such a basis. Even now
they are only admitting half of the true
picture; namely, that we have in excess
of an $18 billion deficit. Why try to
deceive the American people?
I was very disappointed in the Presi-
dent's message on Tuesday night when
he failed to admit the real deficit con-
fronting us, for fiscal 1967. Instead of
recommending and encouraging a cut-
back on some of the domestic programs,
he actually asked for an acceleration of
spending. He has given every indication
of promising more and more of every-
thing for everybody on the premise that
the Federal Government is a bottomless
pit when it comes to getting money.
I believe that the President should
remind the American people that this
Government does not have access to any
mysterious source of income.
The only money that the Federal Gov-
ernment can give to the American peo-
ple, either as individuals or as State or
local agencies in the form of grants, is
money which has first been taken from
their pockets as taxpayers, directly or
indirectly, in the form of taxation or in
the form of creating a larger national
debt.
I have been very disappointed with this
administration, which insists upon ig-
noring its deficits.
When the figures are adjusted to real-
istic and proper accounting methods one
finds that this Great Society-this ad-
ministration, under President Johnson-
in the years 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967
has spent a total of $40'/z billion more
than it has taken in. That is an aver-
age of $10 billion a year that the ad-
ministration is running this country in
the red-an average of $800 million a
month, or $40 million a day for every
day this administration is in office on the
basis of a 5-day workweek. Carrying
the figures further, it comes to $5 million
per hour.
Let us face it-the American peo-
ple cannot afford the extravagance of
this Great Society.
I cite one example of how the Amer-
ican people are being misled by the prop-
aganda that is coming from the executive
branch as to how expenditures are being
cut. These attempts to mislead the peo-
ple, rather than restoring confidence, are
largely contributing to the credibility
gap, a gap which is being enlarged.
I refer to December 1965, at which
time President Johnson, speaking from
his Texas White House, promised to cut
back Federal civilian employment by
25,000. He promised that the executive
branch would insist upon a 25,000 roll-
back in employment during the rest of
that fiscal year, which ended last June
30.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the New York Times article of De-
cember 2, 1965, confirming the Presi-
dent's promise to cut back employment
by 25,000 be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PRESIDENT BACKS A CUT IN U.S. JOBS-AP-
PROVES PLAN To RETIRE 25,000-SPENDS
QUIET DAY
AUSTIN, TEx., December 1.-President
Johnson approved this afternoon a plan that
could eliminate 25,000 Government jobs.
The plan, contained in a memorandum
from the Budget Bureau and released here,
instructs the heads of Government depart-
ments and agencies to reduce their employ-
ment by 1 to 1.25 per cent by the end of
the fiscal year 1966, which ends next June 30.
Joseph Laitin, assistant White House press
secretary, said the plan did not mean that
present employees would be dismissed. It
is designed, he said, to take advantage of
stepped-up retirements from Government
jobs.
These retirements have been increasing be-
cause of a new law offering certain induce-
ments, including larger pensions, to em-
ployees who retire before the first of the
year.
"The vacancies thus created," the memo-
randum said, "present an opportunity to
take new specific action to carry out the
President's long-standing instructions to
hold Federal employment at the minimum
necessary to carry out Government opera-
tions effectively."
S 207
The President spent a quiet day at his
ranch studying reports and preparing for
a meeting tomorrow with Secretary of Agri-
culture Orville L. Freeman and Secretary
of State Dean Rusk.
The main topic at the meeting is expected
to be the world food situation and Mr. John-
son's forthcoming talk with President Mo-
hammad Ayub Khan of Pakistan.
Mr. Rusk is expected to join Mr. John-
son and Defense Secretary Robert S. Mc-
Namara for a discussion of world problems
this weekend or early next week. The White
House announced yesterday that this meet-
ing would be held tomorrow or Friday. How-
ever, officials explained today that adminis-
trative work at the Pentagon would keep Mr.
McNamara in Washington longer than ex-
pected.
The President also spoke by telephone with
his special assistant for national security
affairs, Mr. McGeorge Bundy. Mr. Laitin, in
response to a question, said that the subject
of Mr. Bundy's future had not been discussed
and that, to the best of his knowledge, the
two men had never discussed it. Mr. Bundy
has been offered a post as head of the Ford
Foundation.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Instead
of cutting employment by 25,000, we find
that between December 1, 1965, and July
1, 1966, the administration actually
added 187,506 new employees to the pay-
roll. That was an average of 26,000 a
month, 6,500 a week, or 1,300 a day for
every day during the 7-month period
following a promise of a cutback.
Then during the last campaign, on
September 20, 1966, an Executive order
was issued freezing employment at the
level that prevailed on June 30 for the
temporary appointees and at the level
that prevailed on July 31 for all per-
manent employees. Much was said about
this great promise of economy by the ad-
ministration. They would freeze em-
ployment at the level prevailing at the
beginning of this fiscal year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that this Executive order, signed by
Charles L. Schultze, the Director of the
Budget, be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the Execu-
tive order was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., September 20, 1966.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISMENTS
Subject: Fiscal year 1967 employment
ceilings.
1. The President has directed that the head
of each agency take necessary steps to:
a. Hold employment in full-time perma-
nent positions for the remainder of fiscal
1967 to a level at or below that prevailing as
of July 31, 1966. (Those agencies whose em-
ployment is already above the July 31, 1966,
figure should reduce their employment to the
July 31 level as expeditiously as possible by
not filling vacancies.)
b. Hold employment in temporary, part-
time, or intermittent positions for the re-
mainder of fiscal 1967 to a level at or below
that prevailing as of June 30, 1966, except for
meeting normal seasonal changes in agency
workloads. In no event should such employ-
ment on June 30, 1967, exceed that on June
30, 1966.
2. These actions are an essential part of
President Johnson's efforts to reduce Federal
expenditures.
3. Each agency head should make every
effort to achieve the lowest possible level of
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090119-5
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090119-5
S 208
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE January 1.2, 1967
employment. We must increase our produc-
tivity. redeploy our personnel, simplify our
procedures and strip work to essentials in
order to meet the employment ceilings es-
tablished by this memorandum.
4. In view of the personnel requirements
involved in the Viet Nam conflict, the De-
partment of Defense and the Selective Serv-
ice System are specifically exempt from para-
graph 1 of this memorandum. For these two
agencies, employment ceilings heretofore in
ef`ect will remain in effect subject to adjust-
met:t during review of the 1968 budget.
5. In the case of the Post Office, the June
30, 1967, employment ceiling established in
the January budget review will remain in
effect.
6. Requests for exception to the levels es-
tablished by this memorandum will be pre-
sented to the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget by the agency head under the fol-
iawing circumstances only:
a. When the need for employment in-
creases can be related directly to require-
nients for Southeast Asia, or
b When employment increases are needed
for new programs which were not in exist-
once on July 31, 1966, and for which appro-,
priations or other funds have been provided
and have been apportioned by the Bureau of
the Budget, or
.. When employment increases are needed
for emergency situations involving the pro-
tection of life, property, or the national se-
curity, or
d When transfers o', functions from one
agency to another or Irom headquarters to
the field result in a need to adjust employ-
;rent levels.
In any of the above cases. exceptions will
not be requested until the agency head has
determined that it is clearly not possible to
meet the required employment needs by re-
deploying personnel from other areas so as
to remain under the employment level estab-
lished by this memorandum. Exceptions
will not be granted unless agencies clearly
demonstrate that, such shifts have been
evaluated and that they are not feasible.
CHARLES L. SCHULTZE,
Director.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Now
what happened.? Instead of cutting
back on the number of employees on the
Federal payroll or holding the number at
the level as stated by the Executive order,
96.692 employees were added during the
first 5 months of this f.scal year. This
was during the period that this Execu-
tive order has been in effect.
In the month of October 24,488 were
added to the public payroll. In Novem-
ber, the most recent month for which we
have an accounting. 36,728 more were
added.
Although 96,692 employees were added
during the present fiscal year while this
Executive order, freezing the level at
that of July 1, was in effect.
I repeat, the administration for the
past 5 months has been adding em-
ployees at the rate of 19,000 per month,
or an average of 950 a day. Reducing
the figures further to a 40-hour work-
week it means that since July 1, two em-
ployees have been added every minute.
This padding of the public payroll was
at a time when the President had in
effect an Executive order purportedly
freezing employment. The fact that
this was an election period cannot be
overlooked.
The time has come wl.hen the American
people should be told the truth. I notice
that in his message to Congress earlier
this week the President recommended a
truth-in-lending bill. There Is merit in
the proposal to have truth in lending,
but I say most respectfully that what we
need above all is more truth in Govern-
ment. Let the administration tell the
American people the truth as to what
is being spent. Then the people can
more intelligently decide whether or not
they can afford the luxury of maintain-
ing this extravagant administration in
office. Extravagant administration, yes,
Mr. President--the most extravagant ad-
ministration that has ever had control of
the White House in -the history of this
country.
The total expenditures of the U.S.
Government during the first 6 years of
the New Deal administration, 1933
through 1fi38. were $40.6 billion-or
about the same amount as the actual
deficit created by the Johnson ad-
ministration during its first 4 years in
office.
HEADING OFF THE NUCLEAR ARMS
RACE
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, in his
state of the Union message on January
10, 2 days ago, the President said:
The Soviet Union has in the past year in-
creased its long-range missile capabilities.
It has begun to place near Moscow a limited
antimissile cefense. My first responsibility
to our people is to assure that no nation can
ever find it rational to launch a nuclear at-
tack or to use its nuclear power as a credible
threat against us or our allies.
I would emphasize that that is why an
important link between Russia and the
United States is our common interest in
arms control and disarmament. We have
the solemn duty to slow down the arms race
between us if that is at all possible, in both
conventional and nuclear weapons and de-
fenses. I thought we were making some
progress in -:hat direction, in the first few
months I was in office. I realize any addi-
tional race would impose on our peoples and
on all mankind for that matter, an addi-
tional waste of resources with no gain in
security to either side.
I expect in the days ahead to closely con-
sult and seek the advice of Congress about
the possibilities of international agreements
bearing directly upon this problem.
Americans are gratified, Mr. President,
at this recognition by the administration
of a crucial problem which so directly
and crucially affects the entire human
race. I believe the United States should
try to open full and frank discussions
with the Soviet Union, in an endeavor
to find common cause in heading,, off an
arms race threatened by Soviet deploy-
ment of an antiballistic missile system-
the so-called ABM. If this were to prove
impossible, Mr. President, then our coun-
try would, of course, have no alternative;
and the appropriate means of military
response would indeed be provided. As
a member of the Subcommittee on De-
partment of Defense, of the Committee
on Appropriations, I would support such
a step, whatever the cost.
Ambassador Llewellyn Thompson, the
distinguished veteran American diplo-
mat, has arrived in Moscow to begin an-
other tour as representative of our coun-
try. All Americans wish him every suc-
cess in efforts to make clear the deep
concern of the American people and the
American Government for maintenance
of a rational nuclear balance. His dis-
cussion ought to form the first step in
the opening of the high-level discussions
which I believe are vitally necessary at
this crucial moment, in world history.
On December 9, 1966, I sent the Presi-
dent a telegram, calling on him to em-
ploy the most expeditious diplomatic
channels to take up with the Soviet
Union the question posed by deployment
of the Soviet antiballistic missile system.
I ask unanimous consent that the text
of my telegram to the President on that
occasion be printed in full in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[Text of Senator :Kuchel's telegram q
Soviet decision to proceed with develop-
ment and deployment of anti-ballistic mis-
sile system threatens a new and ominous
round in nuclear arms race. As Commander-
in-Chief of Armed Forces and elected leader
of our Nation, you are most keenly aware
among aL: men of grave portent for peace
posed by this Soviet initiative.
In past years Soviet leaders have indicated
that they would be willing to take necessary
steps to a.void global nuclear war, but their
actions respecting production and develop-
ment of nuclear weaponry contradicts this
claim.
I am firmly ccnvinced that no useful steps
can be taken toward achievement of man's
dream of peace on earth without support
of world's. major nuclear powers. Whatever
their political and ideological differences.
they must agree to a common interest in
avoiding nuclear holocaust, if not, indeed
in preserving fertile and productive atmos-
phere in which men can live on this earth.
I respectfully urge you to employ most
expeditious diplomatic channels to convey
to leaders of Sovie; Union at highest level
the deep concerns of American people on
these issues. I also urge that, without con-
ceding any valid American interests, you
call for full and frank discussions with So-
viet leaders in order to seek common cause
to reverse trend in weaponry which Soviet
actions may have started. If successful,
such discussions could lead to a further ex-
ploration of current assumptions of world
nuclear policy with a view to taking the nec-
essary steps toward peace, something which
could be rendered impossible if the nuclear
arms race is to be resumed.
FREE PRESS AND FREE
BROADCASTER
Mr. ERVIN, Mr. President, one of
America's most forthright television and
radio officials is Charles H. Crutchfield,
president of the Jefferson Standard
Broadcasting Co., of Charlotte, N.C.
Southern Advertising and Publishing for
October 1966 carried an article by Mn
Crutchfield entitled "The Free Press and
the :Free Broadcaster," which sets forth
in a, graphic fashion the necessity of
preserving free speech in the television
and radio industry.
This article merits the thoughtful con-
sideration of all Americans who are con-
cerned about various proposals for cen-
sorship of the press and broadcasting.
For this reason, I ask imanimous consent
to have it printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090119-5