THIN ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 62
• Publication Date: December 15, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

December 15, Y ~~7 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- --SENATE S 19063
H.R. 5615: Continues until the close of similar to the increase Congress voted in the est lobbying," but I wish to make it clear
June 30, 1969, the existing suspension of 89th Congress for those receiving compensa- that without the assistance and support
duties for metal scrap (P.L. 90-45 (7-3-67).) tion growing out of death or disability. (P.L. of concerned groups and individuals, we
H.R.3349: Continues until the close of 90-77 (8-31-67).) would be less than effective as spokes-
September 30, 1967, the existing suspension PUBLIC DEBT
of duties on certain forms of nickel. (P.L. 90- H.R. 4573: Provides, for the men for our public.
48 (7-7-67),) period ending In an editorial in the December 1 edi-
H.R.3652: Continues until the close of on June 30, 1967, a temporary increase in tion of Justice, the ILGWU paper, rec-
June 30, 1970, the existing suspension of the public debt limit set forth in Sec. 21
duties on manganese ore (including ferrugl- of the Second Liberty Bond Act. (P.L. 90-3 ognition is given this function of the
noun ore) and related products. (P.L.,90-49 (3-2-67).) union movement. Evelyn Dubrow, the
(7-7-67)) H.R. 10867: Increases the public debt limit ILGWU, and the other Americans who
H.R. 1566: Provides for the free entry of set forth in See. 21 of the Second Liberty make up the AFL-CIO, ought to be proud
a four-octave carillon for the use of the Bond Act to $358 billion effective On-d 1, of the part they play in what the edi-
1967
, temporarily increases this debt lilnita- ial calls a "fight for a better life."
Northfield and Mount Vernon Schools, East
Northfield Massachusetts. (Priva.te r,, qn- tion by $7 billion, beginning with fiscal year txre ..,e?+ +
:
,
i th t fi h+ b
t ._.,.
o
-
-
u
8
(
` "Provides for the free entry of fay e the fare amount of any Federal are virtually powerless to act unless we
H,R.1888:
one mass spectrometer and one rheogonio- National Mortg ge Association participation continue to receive the encouragement
meter for the use of Prinne+nn rheogoci+.> certificates issu d during fiscal year 1968 in and enthusiastic participation of the
(P.L. 90-39 (6 0-67).) Because ---- of of the significance of the re-
H.R. 3029: Provides for the free entry of ocIAL SECURITY cent AFL-CIO convention, and because
one- ship model for the use of the Lutheran H.R. 12080: rovides 13 percent increases in of the importance of the labor movement
Church of the Covenant, Maple Heights, social security eneflts with a 25 percent in- to all of us, I ask unanimous consent
Ohio. (Private Law 90-67 (8-11-67).) crease in the inimi m benefit; makes other that the editorial be printed in the
H.R. 3737: Provides for the free entry of a improvements the OASDI, Medicare, Medi- RECORD.
carillon for the use of the University of Call- said and pubii welfare programs; initiates
fornia at Riverside. (Private Law 90-68 (8- a new work-tr fling program for recipients There being no objection, the editorial
11-67).) of Aid to Famil s with Dependent Children; was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
H.R. 4934: Provides for the free entry of finances increa d supportive child welfare as follows:
one mass spectrometer for the use of Indiana services; limits t e extent of Federal partici- POPULATION 200,000,000 PLUS
University. (Private Law 90-69 (8-i1-67).) potion in the Me icaid program; consolidates With no special effort at all, the nation
H.R. 4977: Provides for the free entry of a and increases an orizations for child health last month passed the 200,000,000 popula-
triaxial apparatus and rheogoniometer for programs and gr is and provides funds for tion mark. Without either baby bonuses or
the use of Northwestern University. (Private the training of so al work personnel. (Await- organized family planning, we have moved
Law 90-70 (8-1.1-67).) ing Presidential a tion.) i
l
nexorab
y toward the record courit, many
H.R. 2470: Provides for the free entry of HEA INGS ONLY
mistaking this statistic in biology for a meas-
f Tit
rhengnninnie+er
one for. the use
_
o
s
u
assa
tt
ne State of Alabama. '(Hearings held January good health.
Perkin Elm er Autom atic
c use
with accessories for ati use a rimMounteter 25 and February 23, 9
Massachusetts ( 67.) We should rather stop to consider that in the yoke CSouth Hadley, of Hol- Trade Policies an the Kennedy Round. most areas of the world, population growth
Hearing held Marchi10, 1967.) rises in direct proportion to poverty. Other
(text of College, e 1380), and one gas-liquid chro- S. 2100: Provides tax incentives to en- nations, nowhere near as well off as we are,
matograph mass spectrometer for the use courage private enterprise to provide ade- far outstrip us in the rate of increase of their
of the Massachusetts Division of the Ameri quate housing in urb ' poverty areas. (Hear- population, their poverty and the consequent
can Cancer Society (text of S. 1381). (Private ings held September 1, 15, and 16, 1967.) problems. The conclusion is inescapable that
Law 90-82 (8-28-67).) The nomination of :Stanley D. Metzger to denied all else, human beings cannot be de-
H.R. 664: Amends the. Tariff Act of 1930 the U.S. Tariff Commiion. (Hearing held on nied offspring.
to provide that bagpipes and parts thereof September 28, 1967.) Indeed, there are some who argue that the
shall be admitted free of duty. (Awaiting Proposals to impose import quotas on vari- only effective block to the inceasing popula-
Presidential action.) ous commodities. (Hearings held on October tion explosion with which the world will
H.R. 1141: Permits duty-free treatment of 18, 19, 20, 1967.) have to deal will be the more effective spread
limestone, when imported to be used in the of a higher standard of living. By increasing
manufacture of cement, pursuant to the human desires for the good things of life.
Trade Expansion Act of 1962; in lieu of above A FIGHT FOR -A BETTER LIFE by expanding the horizons of ambition, by
language of House-passed bill, which became making available educational and business
amendment to H.R. 286 (P.L. 90-14),. ex- Mr. WILLIAMS oil New Jersey. Mr. channels for achievement, family units are
tends until December 31, 1969, time within President, at the re ent convention Of induced to limit their size in order to make
which Vietnam servicemen may qualify for the AFL-CIO, important and compelling better uses of- their resources.
$50 exemption from tariffs for gifts sent to national issues wer discussed openly, Greater availability of education, better
the United. States, permits under certain honestly, and energ tically. This is noth- health and housing and economic security
conditions importers to transport merchan- ing new, however ; the organized labor have been the constant goals of the middle
dise from the Port of Entry to a customs
bonded warehouse without incurring liabil- movement in the United States has made class. There is a strong tendency in our time
ity for the duty involved until withdrawn consistent contrib :tions to a working di- to be disdainful of middle-class ideals. Vocal
from the warehouse, provides for rounding alog for democragry dissident groups denounce them as being
o...veryo oaiiic vu uu dedicated ~C Lion from life's problems as an alternate.
purposes of computing the Federal excise the contribu ' n of one
tax on cigars, and allow ^ special deduc- labor repre ntative, Evelyn Dubrow. As There is also a tendency in some quarters
tlon for additions to catas h
t
o condemn the organized labor movement
e reserves legislat' representative for the Inter-
for mortgage guaranty insurance anies. by charging it with having gone middle class.
'
(Awaiting Presidential action.) al Ladies
Garment Workers' Un- The mass of its members, through organized
H.R. 2155: Amends the Tariff Schedules ion, Evelyn Dubrow is characteristically effort, have reached many of the elementary
of the United States with respect to the a leader-a leader in progressive, con- goals for which-in a more primitive time-
tariff classification of Chinese gooseberries, structive labor legislation. It is partic- they fought their historic strikes.
and permits under certain conditions im- ularly refreshing to work with Evie, be- The fight for a better life begins with the
porters to transport merchandise from the cause she is proud of her accomplish- drive for a higher standard of living. An-
port of entry to a customs bonded ware- ments and her objectives. Pride rubs off other way of putting it is to say that the
house without incurring liability for the on those who contact it. and I am proud achievement of a better life for the mass of
duty involved until withdrawn from the Americans will require the spread-not cur-
warehouse (latter is also provision of H. a to claim Evelyn Dubrow as an ally in the tailment-of middle class ideals. The his-
1141, which is awaiting Presidential action), Cause of a better way of life for the Na tory of this nation is the story of a levelling
(Awaiting Senate floor action.) tion's workers, up from the bottom and down from the top
VETERANS It is through the patient, precise re- of our social structure toward an expansion
S. 16; Extends full wartime benefits for porting of Miss Dubrow that the 455,000 of the vast middle.
Vietnam veterans and their dependents; in- members of the ILGWU carry on effec- vent ion AFL-CIO goes into national con-
creases educational allowances and broadens tive communications with Congress and unfinished this week it faces an agenda of the
opportunities under the "Cold War G.I. bill";- the general public. I am very much cear to all tasks of our time. It runot ti be
and provides a cost-of-living increase with aware of the disfavor with which some the clear labor that middle class or not i-
respect to non-service-connected pensions organized g movement this na-
respect people view the process of "special inter- tion-and not affsicle clamor groups-that
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5
 S 19064
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 15, 1967
has been the most revolutionary force in our
history by constantly striving for the im-
provement of the general welfare.
Delegates to that convention will be con-
sidering resolutions and programs calling for
increased security for Americans through
full employment, for more and better schools,
for the building of model cities and the
construction of decent homes, for fair
housing and consumer protection and the
further elimination of poverty-middle-class
ideals all.
History provides few certainties, but one
of them seems to be that while dictatorships
from above or below are doomed to fail, tak-
ing a terrible toll, it is the middle mass of
humanity that has endured in a steady
striving for improvement for all.
A,Qfy~
THIN ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE
SYSTEM
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the
recent decision by the administration to
begin the construction of a thin anti-
ballistic missile system has not met with
the unanimous approval of our Nation's
distinguished military scientists. In a
Look magazine article of November 28,
1967, Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, former as-
sistant to the President for science and
technology, and now provost of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
points to the risks involved in making the
decision to spend up to $6 billion on this
initial nuclear defense system. Dr. Wies-
ner manes persuasive arguments against
the usefulness of these missiles in an age
of quick obsolescence. He points to the
overwhelming advantage any offensive
nuclear weapons system can have against
a defense of this type.
Mr. President, our future military se-
curity involves questions which demand
a most -intensive analysis and not the
superficial debate which preceded the
announcement that construction of these
missile sites would begin in the near
future.
I ask unanimous consent to place the
article, entitled "The Case Against the
Anitballistic Missile System," in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE CASE AGAINST THE ANTIBALLISTIC
MISSILE SYSTEM
(By Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner)
When China exploded a hydrogen bomb,
waves of concern spread around the world.
Renewed calls were raised in the United
States for a defense that would protect us
from Chinese nuclear ballistic missiles. These
calls have now been heeded by President
Johnson. Scientists agree that neither the
United States nor the Soviet Union can pro-
tect itself completely from a nuclear attack
by the other. But as long as Communist
China's primitive missile force is very small,
some protection can be achieved-and this is
what the President has decided to buy. Be-
cause he couldn't persuade the Russians to
consider limitations on missile defenses, the
President has now ordered the building-of a
"thin" defensive system to protect us from
the Chinese. The logic of the President's de-
cision seems mighty tortured.
The word in Washington is that President
Johnson was forced to bend under the pres-
sure of the military, congressional and in-
dustrial sponsors of the antiballistic-missile
system. Enormous pressure certainly existed,
but such pressure on a President to build a
missile-defense system is not new. Both Pres-
ident Eisenhower and President Kennedy
were exposed to it. One of the most difficult
decisions President Kennedy had to make
concerned the Nike-Zeus missile-defense sys-
tem. The pressures on him were tremendous,
but after long, careful study, he decided, on
technical grounds, not to build the Nike-
Zeus. Today, we know that to have built that
system would have wasted between $20 and
$30 billion. It would have been already ob-
solete. I am certain that the system we are
now planning will be regarded as ineffective
before it is installed.
Secretary of Defense McNamara estimates
that the United States could build an ABM
system (for between $3 and $6 billion) that
would provide a reasonably effective defense
against Chinese ballistic missiles-for 10 to
15 years. But he concedes that such a system
would do us little good against an attack by
the Russians. Even if the thin ABM system
is as effective as the Secretary of Defense
says-and I strongly question this-should
we take the portentous step of deploying an
ABM system for protection against Red
China? I think we should not.
In his long statement announcing the
President's decision to build an anti-Chinese
ABM system, Secretary McNamara concludes
that the arguments marginally support its
construction. This is obviously a matter of
judgment. I think the arguments are over-
whelmingly against building it. In fact, I be-
lieve that this decision could be as wrong
and have as serious domestic and interna-
tional consequences as the disastrous conclu-
sion six years ago that a few military advisers
and some weapons would lead to an early
victory for South Vietnam's forces.
In the late 1950's, the United States first
began to examine the problem of defense
against ballistic missiles. At that time, the
only useful concept involved low-altitude in-
terceptor missiles armed with nuclear weap-
ons. The idea was that radars would track
an incoming enemy missile and guide our
"anti-missile missile" near enough so that
the nuclear warhead, exploded at the right
time, would destroy the enemy missile. One
defensive rocket would be fired against each
incoming object, But an enemy could easily
confuse the radars-by including along with
the real nuclear warheads high-altitude "de-
coys," such as lightweight metallic balloons.
Since decoys break up or slow down when
they hit the earth's atmosphere, we hoped
that by waiting, we could pick out the real
warheads and launch a defensive attack.
The antimissile missiles would have to be
placed near each city to be defended, and
the tremendous heat and blast caused by the
explosion of the defensive warheads, low
over the cities, could inflict terrible civilian
casualties. It was possible that such a de-
fensive system would do as much damage
as enemy warheads. The Nike-Zeus plans,
therefore, included a major fallout-shelter
program.
During the past two years, it has appeared
feasible to build high-altitude defensive mis-
siles for use against small-scale attacks. The
nuclear warheads on the high-altitude mis-
siles would be exploded far out in space-in
an attempt to destroy both the decoys and
the real enemy warheads. In this way, some
defense of a much wider region, farther
from each antimissile site, would be possible.
The proposal is that, with enough sites, the
entire United States can be protected. But
this will not work if an attacker staggers his
decoys and warheads in time and spreads
them over a large area, or precedes them by
a nuclear explosion of his own to "black
out' our defending radars. High-altitude de-
fense represents an improved approach to the
problem of defense against ballistic missiles,
but it is by no means a solution.
The basic technical fact about an A13M de-
fense is that a sophisticated opponent can
overcome any defense currently possible. Of-
fense has all of the advantages; any defense
system can be overpowered.
Today, the nuclear powers rely on the de-
terrent effect of their offensive missiles to
keep the peace. A powerful incentive, there-
fore, exists for either side to increase its of-
fensive-missile forces the moment the other
starts to build an ABM system.
The Russians appear to be building a sim-
ple ABM defense around Moscow, and possibly
other areas, though it is yet unclear that
they have decided on a full-scale, antimissile
defense system. In response, the United
States has taken steps to add decoys and
multiple warheads to its own offensive-mis-
sile force. These actions on our part are still
quite limited, but the steps we have already
taken, especially the introduction of multi-
ple warheads on each missile to overwhelm
possible Soviet defenses, will greatly increase
the number of missile warheads in our in-
ventory. The Russians 'appear to have been
taking similar steps in anticipation of a U.S.
decision to build an ABM system. An ABM
system in the U.S. will stimulate the Soviets
to increase the number of their offensive war-
heads.
The United States is earnestly seeking
some agreement with the Soviet Union to
limit the deployment of ABM systems and
missiles, in order to forestall a new spiral in
the arms race. Unofficial conversations have
been held with individual Russians, but we
have not succeeded in getting discussions
started at an official government level. In
Glassboro, President Johnson repeated to
Mr. Kosygin our willingness to explore the
problem. The Soviet Union does not seem
ready to discuss such questions-yet. But
there is no need for us to rush into an ABM
deployment.
There is little relation between a Russian
decision to deploy an ABM system (if, indeed,
they have made a decision for more than an
experimental system) and such a decision
here. Our security would be seriously endan-
gered if the Russians installed an effective
ABM defense that could prevent our missile
force from reaching their territory and if
they simultaneously developed an effective
defense against our Strategic Air Force
bombers-something they have not been able
to do so far. Since it is obvious folly for us
to build a defense against missiles while we
also are so vulnerable to a bomber attack,
the Pentagon has quietly decided to spend
four billion more dollars improving our air-
defense system.
I do not believe that a really effective anti-
missile system is remotely possible for either
the U.S. or the Russians. And even if the
Russians could develop one, and a truly ef-
fective defense against our SAC bombers as
well, our installing an ABM system would not
restore our powers of deterrence. Only im-
provements in our own offensive-missile
force, including "penetration aids" such as
decoys and electronic jammers to ensure that
our missiles could get through the Russian
defense, could achieve this. This is our De-
fense Department's basic strategy.
The United States has embarked on a large,
expensive program of outfitting ballistic mis-
siles with multiple warheads and other de-
vices to penetrate Russian defenses. We have
also started a $2 billion program to replace
our submarine-based Polaris missiles with
the larger Poseidon missiles, which can carry
more and better penetration aids. As long as
we continue to improve our missile forces
and maintain our B-52 bomber force, our
deterrent power will remain effective. An
ABM system is not required to preserve the
power and the effectiveness of our deterrents.
We should build an ABM system only if it
gives us greater security. And in deciding this,
we must assume that the Russians will re-
spond to our ABM system by upgrading and
enlarging their missile force-just as we are
doing in response to their ABM activities. If
the Russians were to do this, an American
ABM system would leave us with less security
and more vulnerable to destruction.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5
December 15, .1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S19065
Secretary McNamara and many proponents
of an ABM system concede that an anti-
Soviet ABM defense would not be worth the
huge expense, because the Russians could
nullify its effectiveness at considerably lower
cost to themselves. So the proponents now
argue: We can at least provide ourselves with
protection against Red China at a more mod-
est post and without starting a new Russian-
American arms spiral. Is this so? Again, I
think not.
An ABM system would grant us some pro-
tection against China's missiles during,the
early years of its missile buildup; but this
protection would not be complete, and it
would be short-lived, certainly, much shorter
than 15 years. Once the Chinese can build
intercontinental missiles, the cost to them
of producing additional missiles would be
relatively small (perhaps $5 to $10 million
per missile). Within a short time, they would
have enough missiles (say, 50 to 100) to
penetrate our "anti-Chinese" ABM system.
The Chinese would certainly build pene-
tration aids into their missile force. The
techniques of designing such aids are neither
highly complex nor exceedingly costly (one
can learn all about them in American aero-
space journals). I do not believe, therefore,
that an ABM system will give us either com-
plete or lasting protection against Chinese
missiles. I am convinced we must rely instead
on the offensive deterrent, as we must with
the Russians; that is, we must rely on our
known ability to retaliate devastatingly in
case of a nuclear attack. Ten percent of our
SAC bomber force could kill 200 million
Chinese.
I am very skeptical that any ABM system
based on the present approach will ever
work at its calculated effectiveness. No one
has even succeeded in developing an anti-
aircraft defense that is as much as ten per-
cent effective (three percent is a more com-
mon actual effectiveness). An ABM system
that was only this effective would be almost
worthless. Even if an ABM system were as
much as 90 percent effective, it could still
not prevent an opponent from inflicting mil-
lions of fatalities on us.
Besides, whenever an ABM system might
be installed, how could a realistic test be
made? We could not fire missiles at it (it
would he located within the continental
United States), and from hard experience
during World War II, we know that far
simpler devices (such as submarine torpe-
does) fail to work the first time. I realize
that a model system is being tested on
Kwajalein, but these tests are under lab-
oratory conditions and cannot simulate a
nationwide installation manned by GI's and
technicians. Even if we were willing to fire
missiles at the system, the test would not be
completely realistic, for we would be testing
against our missiles, not enemy warheads.
Few competent people expect the extremely
complex ABM system to work the first time;
yet it must to have any effect!
There will always remain a big chance that
even if the system is working as designed, it
will not intercept all of the enemy missiles.
They will obviously know how our ABM sys-
tem works; we will know little about their
offensive weapons. Imagine the advantage a
football team wouldhave if it knew precisely
its opponents' defense on every play. Re-
member that if a single enemy nuclear wea-
pon leaks through the defense to a city, the
city will be destroyed.
Besides,, the Chinese could,bypass our ABM
system completely-either with low-altitude
missiles launched from submarines or with
aircraft, which, surprisingly enough, are more
difficult to intercept than intercontinental
ballistic missiles because they come in at
relatively low altitude and do not follow
predictable projectories the way a missile
does. We simply cannot rely upon an ABM
fiystem to give us a sure defense against a
Chinese attack.
Many people also fear that the deterrent
power on which we rely against the Soviet
Union will not be effective against China.
The exceptional anxiety expressed each time
the Chinese carry out a nuclear test seems
related not to their military potential but
to our view of them as irrational or un-
stable. This anxiety rises more from Chinese
rhetoric than Chinese actions. Although the
words of China's leaders have been inflam-
matory in the extreme, in action, they have
been exceedingly cautious.
China's actual military capacity is, most
likely for decades to come, hardly compar-
able to that of either the United States, or
the Soviet Union. The Chinese have an ex-
tremely limited industrial capacity (until
now, they have produced no aircraft of their
own!). They also lack the broad base of tech-
nically trained manpower that is absolutely
necessary for a modern military establish-
ment. Nonetheless, they have made, remark-
able progress in developing nuclear weaponry.
They took less time than any of the other
nuclear powers to carry out a thermonuclear
explosion. In this, they received considerable
help from the Soviet Union, in the late 1950's,
as well as a good deal of technological in-
formation from open sources and their own
intelligence network. And they do appear to
be making progress on missiles capable of
carrying nuclear weapons. Apparently, they
launched one of their nuclear weapons on a
short-range missile. Though we have no evi-
dence of a Chinese long-range ballistic mis-
sile, we know that their resources are ade-
quate to develop one and I, believe, produce
it in moderate numbers (100-200) in less
than a decade.
During the late 1950's, many statements by
Chinese leaders minimized the importance of
nuclear weapons, arguing that they did not
really change the relative power balance. We
heard boasts that China alone among the
great powers would be able to survive a nu-
clear war. All this has changed. The Chinese
now renounce any intention of being the first
to use their nuclear weapons, and they show
every sign of a growing sophistication in nu-
clear matters, which is to be expected as they
acquire knowledge of the terrible effects of
nuclear explosions.
It is China's neighbors, not we, who would
be most directly threatened by any Chinese
missile force, and an ABM system in the
U.S. would be of little help to them. We
could not deploy an ABM system in India
and Japan; they are too close to China to
permit the system to work effectively. What,
then, must the leaders and people of Japan
and India think as we make plans to hide
under an ABM umbrella while they have no
way to defend themselves? If the United
States is so fearful of China that it must cre-
ate an ABM defense, should not Japan and
India conclude that it is time for them to
make their peace with the Chinese? There is
no easier way for us to build up China in
Asian eyes. No Asian can afford to believe
that we are prepared to lose New York to
counter a Chinese nuclear attack against
them. Some Indian officials are already ask-
ing for a missile-defensive system.
Can we build a limited ABM system to
protect us against China without stimulating
the Soviet Union to respond with an offen-
sive-force buildup of its own? I think not.
Just as we are enlarging our missile forces
because we cannot wait to see whether the
Soviet Union is building a limited or an
extensive ABM system, so the Russians could
not wait to see whether our system would be
a limited one before embarking on an offen-
sive-missile buildup. Even if, as the President
proposes, we build a thin ABM system, it
would be unlikely to remain small; pressures
from the military and industrial establish-
ment to improve-and expand it would be
irresistible. Most military planners expect
the system to expand rapidly, and in fact do
not consider the initial system to be of much
use. This is the reality of the President's
decision. I am convinced that once we decide
to take the ABM route, we cannot avoid an
enlarged arms race.
Three other consequences of the Presi-
dent's decision are not generally appreciated.
First, an expanded ABM system will be
needed eventually to cope with decoys and
multiple warheads. It will almost certainly
raise the issue of fallout shelters to protect
the population both from Russian nuclear
weapons and our awn protective system.
Secondly, no one has bothered to mention
the several hundred million dollars a year
that it will cost to maintain and operate even
this thin system or the billions of dollars it
would take to run the final one.
Finally, our only substantial arms limita-
tion accomplishment, the limited test ban
treaty, is likely to be a victim of this step-up
in the arms race. The developers of the ABM
system will soon be telling us that they can-
not assure its effectiveness without nuclear
tests in the atmosphere. The pressure on the
President to renounce the treaty in the in-
terest of national security and protecting
our multi-billion-dollar investment will be
overwhelming.
The United States and Russia are learning
to work together to create a more rational
world order. Gone are those deep fears of a
surprise attack that dominated the 1950's.
The best hope for the future lies in joint
efforts by the Soviet Union and the United
States to eliminate the arms race. - Such
efforts will be impossible if each side is forced
to offset the defensive and offensive buildup
of the other.
Under the present circumstances, we are
going to have to accept and live with a "de-
terrent balance." We have done it with the
Russians. We will have to with the Chinese.
There just is no way to avoid this; there is
no magical or technical escape from the di-
lemmas of the nuclear age through defense.
A sensible course would be to reduce greatly
the offensive-missile forces on both sides,
achieving the deterrence with much less
danger to all of us.
Like most other scientists who have studied
its problems. I am convinced that much
mutually coordinated disarmament is tech-
nically achievable with considerably less
risk, effort and cost than is involved in our
current deterrent positions. The blocks to
disarmament are political and psychological,
not technical.- Unfortunately, disarmament
has- no effective political support, no vested
interests-backing it, and no power base in
the Government bureaucracy or in the Con-
gress. Some of the same senators who have
been pressing the President to spend tens of
billions of dollars on defense against a missile
attack have consistently tried to cut the
tiny budget of the Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency. Substantial balanced dis-
armament is sensible, safe and technically
achievable, and even partial disarmament
would release many tens of billions of dollars
for constructive uses. But it is not coming
very fast. Until statesmen take disarmament
efforts seriously and fashion international
security arrangements more appropriate to
the nuclear age we all live in, the best we can
hope for is an increasingly nightmarish peace
insured by only a balance of terror.
A real defense against nuclear-armed mis-
siles is a mirage. Our only real security lies
in peace itself. Nuclear weapons are just too
potent for effective defense. The best defense
is to prevent a nuclear war.
LABOR MOVEMENT SEEKS CHANCE
FOR GREATER SERVICE TO POOR
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, no one
knows the problems, the frustrations and
the. desperate needs of America's poor
like the poor themselves. It goes without
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5
 S 19066
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 15, 1967
saying that only the deprived fully com-
prehend deprivation. Only those without
sufficient food know the real meaning of
hunger and malnutrition. Only families
forced to live in reeking big city slums
and dilapidated rural shacks, understand,
the real meaning of squalor. Only those
who cannot afford medical and hospital.
care know the true disaster of illness and
disease. Only those doomed to unemploy-
ment or a lifetime of low-paying un-
skilled jobs understand the heartbreak of
no education and the lack of job training.
The one group of Americans that
comes closest to understanding the trage-
dy of penury, hunger, ignorance and dis-
ease are the Nation's working men and
women and their trade union organiza-
tions. It can be truthfully said that the
American labor movement, now nearly
200 years old, was the first to wage or-
ganized war against poverty in the New
World and that the AFL-CIO today is
one of the most effective instruments in
the continuing struggle to eradicate pov-
erty from this most affluent of all nations.
It deserves to be emphasized, Mr. Pres-
ident, that the excellent support which
the AFL-CIO, representing 15,000,000
working men and women, gives to the
war on poverty is not just verbal and
moral. Day in and day out the AFL-CIO
and its 130 affiliates participate in na-
tional and local antipoverty programs.
Day in and day out thousands and thou-
sands of AFL-CIO leaders and members
devote their time, talent and energies,
as volunteers, to a great variety of local,
regional and national antipoverty pro-
grams. Because they work closely with
these programs and are themselves part
of the programs, they and their orga-
nizations are in a unique position tO
judge the worth of the overall effort.
Because that is true, Mr. President, the
judgment of the AFL-CIO on the Fed-
eral antipoverty program is worth the
careful consideration of Congress and
the American people.
The seventh constitutional conven-
tion of the AFL-CIO has been meeting
this week in Bal Harbour, Fla., and the
more than 1,000 delegates unanimously
approved a policy statement dealing with
the war on poverty and the OEO. Among
many things worth noting about this
statement, Mr. President, is the fact that
the American labor movement, unlike
others who comment on the program,
does not just stand aside and render ex
cathedra opinions. The labor movement,
already deeply involved in the war on
poverty, wants to become more involved,
wants greater responsibilities, seeks ad-
ditional opportunitiees to help and to
contribute. Mr. President, I ask for unan-
imous consent that the AFL-CIO con-
vention policy statement on the war on
poverty be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
WAR ON POVERTY
Whereas, The first threeyears of operation
of the anti-poverty program under the direc-
tion of the Office of Economic Opportunity
has opened up for thousands of the poor, op-
portunities for education, training, jobs, so-
cial, legal and health services that have en-
abled them to escape from the misery*and
frustration of poverty, and has given hope
and the promise of a better life to still thou-
sands of others.
The AFL-CIO commends the action of
Congress for the constructive action it has
taken with regard to the anti-poverty pro-
gram by continuing for two years; by author-
izing $1.98 billion for the current year and
$2.18 for the following year; by permitting
anti-poverty agencies to contribute their
share of the cost of local anti-poverty pro-
gams in services and facilities. We urge both
Houses of Congress to appropriate the full
amount authorized.
The AFL-CIO is aware of the indispensable
role that local Community Action Agencies
have played in the war on poverty. We feel
that every effort should be made to retain
a balance in the local Community Action
Agency that will permit the poor and other
concerned segments of the community to
continue their important role in developing
new and innovative programs that meet the
needs of the poor.
To win the war on poverty much more
needs to be done. The war on poverty should
be expanded. Proven programs should be ex-
tended. New programs should be developed
to meet unmet needs. While the efforts of
Congress toward increased funding of the
anti-poverty program are a step in the right
direction, the current funding of OEO is
woefully inadequate, both in terms of the
need and of our capabilities. Therefore, be it
Resolved: 1. That the AFL-CIO continue to
support the war on poverty at all levels, as an
essential program in helping all segments of
our society share in its affluence.
2. That the President and Congress are
urged to expand the war on poverty under
the Office of Economic Opportunity and that
the funding of OEO programs be substan-
tially increased to meet the overwhelming
demand for local programs of various kinds
to help the poor.
3. That local AFL-CIO central bodies co-
operate with church, civil rights, school, so-
cial welfare and other community groups in
safeguarding the integrity of the local Com-
munity Action Program to permit it freedom
to develop, promote and carry forward mean-
ingful anti-poverty programs.
4. That local central labor bodies insist on
having adequate representation on local
Community Action Agencies, along with rep-
resentatives of minority groups and of the
poor themselves; and where possible, state
and local central bodies should initiate or
sponsor programs through OEO, designed to
help the poor.
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, recently I was pleased to co-
sponsor a bill, S. 2704, to permit em-
ployer contributions to trust funds to
provide employees, their families, and
dependents with scholarships for study
at educational institutions or for the
establishment of child care centers for
preschool and school age dependents of
employees. It has recently come to my
attention that Herbert A. Levine, di-
rector of the Labor Education Center at
Rutgers, , our State University in New
Brunswick, N.J., has written a most pen-
etrating article on this subject in; the
fall 1967 issue of Changing Education.
In view of the importance of this issue-
the maintenance of the highest stand-
ards of educational opportunity for all of
our children-I ask unanimous consent
that Professor Levine's article entitled
"Educational Opportunity: A New Fringe
Benefit for Collective Bargaining," be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.,
as follows:
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY: A NEW FRINGE
BENEFIT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
(By Herbert A. Levine) -
Both workers and management benefit
when employees add to their education, says
the author. That's why unions should exer-
cise their power at the collective bargaining
table to demand time and payment for class-
work for their members. The writer surveys
examples of current agreements, signed by
several major unions, aimed at this. goal, and
offers suggestions for additional approaches.
American labor unions from the very out-
set have understood the importance of edu-
cation as an instrument of democracy and a
vehicle to advance the working man' As a
consequence, they have consistently sup-
ported social and political policies which pro-
mised to enlarge educational opportunities
for working people. These unions lead the
world, not only in the level of real income
achieved by workers, but in the extent and
nature of the fringe benefits they have won
through collective bargaining?
It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that
American labor unions have not yet seriously
brought educational opportunity for their
members to the collective bargaining table. If
unions were to turn their attention to nego-
tiating educational opportunity in their col-
lective bargaining agreements, it would have
a profound effect not only upon the charac-
ter of organized labor but on the quality and
skill of the American work force. It would
also significantly alter the United States' edu-
cation system. -
Undoubtedly, unionsare correct in taking
the position that education is primarily a
public responsibility which should be sup-
ported, in the main, as a social charge on -
the public treasury .3 In this regard, many
unions fought for federal aid to education,
called for free universal education through
college, supported the development of low-
cost community colleges; and some have
urged income tax deductions for education
expense. But unions have negotiated a wide
variety of fringe benefits, such as pensions,
health plans, and supplementary unemploy-
ment benefit (SUB) plans which comple-
ment existing public programs. The time has
come for unions to place educational oppor-
tunities high on their fringe benefit priority
list, so that significant sums of money will
become available to develop programs for
supplementing public educational provisions.
THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF WORKERS
Professor Whitehead has suggested that a
society which does not value trained intel-
ligence is doomed? President Johnson says it
in another way, "We must recognize that a
free society today demands that we keep on
learning or face the threat of national de-
terioration." 5 The professionally educated
union members, the engineer, the laboratory
technician, the nurse, and the teacher, are
being inundated by new knowledge which is
increasing at a phenomenal rate. We are told
1 "Report of the Workingmen's Committee,"
Workingman's Advocate, New York, March 6,
1820, in Commons, A Documentary History of
American Industrial Society 1909-1911, Vol.
I, pp. 95-100.
2 Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial
Relations, 19545, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, October, 1965.
3 U.S. Senate 87:2, Federal Assistance to
General University, Extension Education
Programs (Labor and Public Welfare Com-
mittee, Washington, D.C., July 26, 1962).
A Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of
Education (New York City: Mentor Books,
July, 1949).
6 Paul H. Sheats, "New Knowledge for
What?" Adult Leadership, January, 1963, p.
194. -
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300110062-5